Curious, where do you think voicemail is stored?. If you had said the mechanism for transmitting the text message is unreliable, i would probably give your statement some thought but the server is unreliable?. Is this the same server that the voicemail is stored on?.
The only difference between voicemail and text messages is that text messages is a push technology while voicemail is pull (ie, the carrier sends you text message, while for voicemail, you decide when it gets to your device).. they are both stored on the same **unreliable, according to you** server.
Perhaps you meant to say push technology is unreliable? (rather than the server itself).
Having played around with SMS gateways on Linux using cell modems I have discovered that there are serious short comings to the way that the different providers share the messaging. That being said I am probably not as much of an expert in the technology as others on this thread.
Having played around with SMS gateways on Linux using cell modems I have discovered that there are serious short comings to the way that the different providers share the messaging. That being said I am probably not as much of an expert in the technology as others on this thread.
m
I think apple though is not talking about text messages. Their patent seems to be data in general (any data) that is converted to voice and then stored for user retrieval.
There are pros and cons to each approach. Some data is pull (not all is push, text message is push for example while weather.com displaying weather is a pull).
I think someone had a good point though.. converting data (for which a iphone user would have unlimited data plan) to voice (with specific minutes). So now someone could potentially pay for something that should be free. Interesting. Also sometimes data is better than voice. Example, text messages or email. I can set up my email on the treo to continually check for email. Suppose i am somewhere where coverage is spotty.. perhaps when i want to check my messages, network is not available but unknown to me (say, i was paying attention to something else), my device had a short window when it was connected and downloaded my email for me... in such an instance, i would prefer data.. yes, i have to wait to get into coverage but the same is true for voice however, since i set up my device to automatically pull in my emails, i can take my time reading emails even when the network is not available. The same could be said for web applications.. Example, for advantgo, i would want to retrieve all my data when i have network so that i can later at my leisure view the data..
I think apple is not trying to solve problem about unreliable servers but of handicap access.. i fail to see how this is useful othewise, what problem other than handicap access would they be solving?
I think apple though is not talking about text messages. Their patent seems to be data in general (any data) that is converted to voice and then stored for user retrieval.
There are pros and cons to each approach. Some data is pull (not all is push, text message is push for example while weather.com displaying weather is a pull).
I think someone had a good point though.. converting data (for which a iphone user would have unlimited data plan) to voice (with specific minutes). So now someone could potentially pay for something that should be free. Interesting. Also sometimes data is better than voice. Example, text messages or email. I can set up my email on the treo to continually check for email. Suppose i am somewhere where coverage is spotty.. perhaps when i want to check my messages, network is not available but unknown to me (say, i was paying attention to something else), my device had a short window when it was connected and downloaded my email for me... in such an instance, i would prefer data.. yes, i have to wait to get into coverage but the same is true for voice however, since i set up my device to automatically pull in my emails, i can take my time reading emails even when the network is not available. The same could be said for web applications.. Example, for advantgo, i would want to retrieve all my data when i have network so that i can later at my leisure view the data..
I think apple is not trying to solve problem about unreliable servers but of handicap access.. i fail to see how this is useful othewise, what problem other than handicap access would they be solving?
To quote from a quote:
Quote:
"Therefore, SMS-PP requires the use of a backend server to provide the necessary support for transmission of data between sender and receiver."
I think the idea, as they've said, is to be able to send this data, when the above is not available, where you wouldn't be able to send the data at all.
They are giving you a choice whether to send it or not. It seems as though the phone will be able to detect whether the required support for the data is available, and if it isn't, it asks if you'd rather send the data over using voice protocols.
I think the idea, as they've said, is to be able to send this data, when the above is not available, where you wouldn't be able to send the data at all.
They are giving you a choice whether to send it or not. It seems as though the phone will be able to detect whether the required support for the data is available, and if it isn't, it asks if you'd rather send the data over using voice protocols.
That's one service it's being used for.
That's not what he said.. quote
"Fadell explains that the concept is particularly well suited for people having visual problems or in those situations where viewing the data on a small display screen is problematic".
This has nothing to do with whether the receiver could process data services or not. Basically the sender determines to send data via voice or data (probably based on fact that sender is familiar with receiver capabilities).
For what you are thinking, that would require a backend. I don't think a device could determine if another subscriber (from possibly a different service provider) has data services or is able to receive data so this mean AT&T would have to agree to implement mechanism for determine receiver capabilities (even if vocalization is done on device itself). This would basically introduce a backend server (exactly the opposite of apple intention).
"Fadell explains that the concept is particularly well suited for people having visual problems or in those situations where viewing the data on a small display screen is problematic".
This has nothing to do with whether the receiver could process data services or not. Basically the sender determines to send data via voice or data (probably based on fact that sender is familiar with receiver capabilities).
For what you are thinking, that would require a backend. I don't think a device could determine if another subscriber (from possibly a different service provider) has data services or is able to receive data so this mean AT&T would have to agree to implement mechanism for determine receiver capabilities (even if vocalization is done on device itself). This would basically introduce a backend server (exactly the opposite of apple intention).
I understand what you're saying.
But, by ignoring the first half of his discussion, you are not giving credit for the reason WHY he wants to do it this way.
I'' requote the first part, and then the part right after.
Quote:
"For example, a user can send type a text message using, for example, Short Message Service-Point to Point (SMS-PP) protocol as defined in GSM recommendation 03.40 where messages are sent via a store-and forward mechanism to a Short Message Service Center (SMSC), which will attempt to send the message to the recipient and possibly retry if the user is not reachable at a given moment," he wrote. "Therefore, SMS-PP requires the use of a backend server to provide the necessary support for transmission of data between sender and receiver."
On the other hand, Fadell's concept calls for a mechanism whereby data is passed between a sender and receiver unit by way of voice channel only, therefore bypassing use of the data channel used in conventional arrangements.
As you can see, he is saying the doing it the conventional way reguires a lot of equipment, INCLUDING a backend server.
His suggestion does NOT require that backend server that you seem to think it would.
In other words, he's saying just the opposite you are.
I think my idea is correct.
He's just giving a use for which it would be better suited as well.
Comments
Curious, where do you think voicemail is stored?. If you had said the mechanism for transmitting the text message is unreliable, i would probably give your statement some thought but the server is unreliable?. Is this the same server that the voicemail is stored on?.
The only difference between voicemail and text messages is that text messages is a push technology while voicemail is pull (ie, the carrier sends you text message, while for voicemail, you decide when it gets to your device).. they are both stored on the same **unreliable, according to you** server.
Perhaps you meant to say push technology is unreliable? (rather than the server itself).
Having played around with SMS gateways on Linux using cell modems I have discovered that there are serious short comings to the way that the different providers share the messaging. That being said I am probably not as much of an expert in the technology as others on this thread.
m
Having played around with SMS gateways on Linux using cell modems I have discovered that there are serious short comings to the way that the different providers share the messaging. That being said I am probably not as much of an expert in the technology as others on this thread.
m
I think apple though is not talking about text messages. Their patent seems to be data in general (any data) that is converted to voice and then stored for user retrieval.
There are pros and cons to each approach. Some data is pull (not all is push, text message is push for example while weather.com displaying weather is a pull).
I think someone had a good point though.. converting data (for which a iphone user would have unlimited data plan) to voice (with specific minutes). So now someone could potentially pay for something that should be free. Interesting. Also sometimes data is better than voice. Example, text messages or email. I can set up my email on the treo to continually check for email. Suppose i am somewhere where coverage is spotty.. perhaps when i want to check my messages, network is not available but unknown to me (say, i was paying attention to something else), my device had a short window when it was connected and downloaded my email for me... in such an instance, i would prefer data.. yes, i have to wait to get into coverage but the same is true for voice however, since i set up my device to automatically pull in my emails, i can take my time reading emails even when the network is not available. The same could be said for web applications.. Example, for advantgo, i would want to retrieve all my data when i have network so that i can later at my leisure view the data..
I think apple is not trying to solve problem about unreliable servers but of handicap access.. i fail to see how this is useful othewise, what problem other than handicap access would they be solving?
I think apple though is not talking about text messages. Their patent seems to be data in general (any data) that is converted to voice and then stored for user retrieval.
There are pros and cons to each approach. Some data is pull (not all is push, text message is push for example while weather.com displaying weather is a pull).
I think someone had a good point though.. converting data (for which a iphone user would have unlimited data plan) to voice (with specific minutes). So now someone could potentially pay for something that should be free. Interesting. Also sometimes data is better than voice. Example, text messages or email. I can set up my email on the treo to continually check for email. Suppose i am somewhere where coverage is spotty.. perhaps when i want to check my messages, network is not available but unknown to me (say, i was paying attention to something else), my device had a short window when it was connected and downloaded my email for me... in such an instance, i would prefer data.. yes, i have to wait to get into coverage but the same is true for voice however, since i set up my device to automatically pull in my emails, i can take my time reading emails even when the network is not available. The same could be said for web applications.. Example, for advantgo, i would want to retrieve all my data when i have network so that i can later at my leisure view the data..
I think apple is not trying to solve problem about unreliable servers but of handicap access.. i fail to see how this is useful othewise, what problem other than handicap access would they be solving?
To quote from a quote:
"Therefore, SMS-PP requires the use of a backend server to provide the necessary support for transmission of data between sender and receiver."
I think the idea, as they've said, is to be able to send this data, when the above is not available, where you wouldn't be able to send the data at all.
They are giving you a choice whether to send it or not. It seems as though the phone will be able to detect whether the required support for the data is available, and if it isn't, it asks if you'd rather send the data over using voice protocols.
That's one service it's being used for.
To quote from a quote:
I think the idea, as they've said, is to be able to send this data, when the above is not available, where you wouldn't be able to send the data at all.
They are giving you a choice whether to send it or not. It seems as though the phone will be able to detect whether the required support for the data is available, and if it isn't, it asks if you'd rather send the data over using voice protocols.
That's one service it's being used for.
That's not what he said.. quote
"Fadell explains that the concept is particularly well suited for people having visual problems or in those situations where viewing the data on a small display screen is problematic".
This has nothing to do with whether the receiver could process data services or not. Basically the sender determines to send data via voice or data (probably based on fact that sender is familiar with receiver capabilities).
For what you are thinking, that would require a backend. I don't think a device could determine if another subscriber (from possibly a different service provider) has data services or is able to receive data so this mean AT&T would have to agree to implement mechanism for determine receiver capabilities (even if vocalization is done on device itself). This would basically introduce a backend server (exactly the opposite of apple intention).
That's not what he said.. quote
"Fadell explains that the concept is particularly well suited for people having visual problems or in those situations where viewing the data on a small display screen is problematic".
This has nothing to do with whether the receiver could process data services or not. Basically the sender determines to send data via voice or data (probably based on fact that sender is familiar with receiver capabilities).
For what you are thinking, that would require a backend. I don't think a device could determine if another subscriber (from possibly a different service provider) has data services or is able to receive data so this mean AT&T would have to agree to implement mechanism for determine receiver capabilities (even if vocalization is done on device itself). This would basically introduce a backend server (exactly the opposite of apple intention).
I understand what you're saying.
But, by ignoring the first half of his discussion, you are not giving credit for the reason WHY he wants to do it this way.
I'' requote the first part, and then the part right after.
"For example, a user can send type a text message using, for example, Short Message Service-Point to Point (SMS-PP) protocol as defined in GSM recommendation 03.40 where messages are sent via a store-and forward mechanism to a Short Message Service Center (SMSC), which will attempt to send the message to the recipient and possibly retry if the user is not reachable at a given moment," he wrote. "Therefore, SMS-PP requires the use of a backend server to provide the necessary support for transmission of data between sender and receiver."
On the other hand, Fadell's concept calls for a mechanism whereby data is passed between a sender and receiver unit by way of voice channel only, therefore bypassing use of the data channel used in conventional arrangements.
As you can see, he is saying the doing it the conventional way reguires a lot of equipment, INCLUDING a backend server.
His suggestion does NOT require that backend server that you seem to think it would.
In other words, he's saying just the opposite you are.
I think my idea is correct.
He's just giving a use for which it would be better suited as well.