And just why would they do that? I just can't see all the first gen users dropping a perfectly good phone for another. Sure some will but that is far from ALL!
In Europe, it should be a significant number. Because over there, the current 2.5G iPhone usually isn't seeing a slow EDGE network like it is in the US, but rather, a super-slow GPRS network.
Like 30 to 40 kilobits per second. Wheeee.
Given that, plenty of Euros should be wanting to move up to the 3G model... stat! Can ya blame 'em?
That makes no sense. Oh wait... you were trying to be funny. My condolences.
It makes about the same amount of sense as saying 3G alone will recover Apples lost prices. On a device that currently only accounts for about 3% of Apples revenue.
Quote:
Golly... Seth's experience sure doesn't seem to be everyone's, considering that Anandtech saw nearly 3 hours web browsing from a BlackJack I, which has a smaller battery and an older, less-efficient chipset than the 'Jack II:
So far no one seems to care enough about the BJ 2 to do a thorough review of its battery life claims. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't seem to have a large increase in 3G time on the BJ 2.
Quote:
Well, that isn't what me and solip were debating. He says 3G will double sales, I said it won't, but that it'll help quite a lot (especially in Europe) and that the initial sales boom will be quite large.
O2 reports that the iPhone is its best selling phone. O2 subscriptions and sales are at record highs. The iPhone brings O2 30% more revenue per customer than the average phone.
Even though 3G is widely available in Europe. The number of actual 3G subscribers is comparatively small. I've been asking some of my Euro friends here in NYC if they demand to have 3G, most of them did not seem to care, some didn't even know what I was talking about.
We shall see. Even though 3G is widely available in Europe. The number of actual 3G subscribers is comparatively small. I've been asking some of my Euro friends here in NYC if they demand to have 3G, most of them did not seem to care, some didn't even know what I was talking about.
I've asked my friend's and the ones with iPhones have all said they will get a 3G version ASAP. There are people I know with other smartphones and regular phones that also plan to get iPhones once 3G is available.
Humorously, the ones that seem most adamant about a 3G iPhone are the ones that made the iPhone their first experience with a smartphone. It seems the Safari browser implementation is a major seller.
Plus, as I stated, the biggest complaint seems to be the lack of 3G. But who knows, perhaps those people will be calling for a 64GB 4G version before they trade in their circa 1996 StarTAC phone.
I've asked my friend's and the ones with iPhones have all said they will get a 3G version ASAP. There are people I know with other smartphones and regular phones that also plan to get iPhones once 3G is available.
I think the Euro's get painted with a wide brush of being overly techno savvy. I just haven't seen that of the ones I know. Some of them are tech savvy and demand 3G, most are busy living life and don't pay much attention to the technology inside their phone, and some don't know anything and don't particularly care.
It doesn't have to be the same size. The nano far out sells the Classic. The Touch by this point or very soon will outsell the Classic. Once the Touch can broach 100GB I don't think it far fetched Apple may drop the Classic sooner than later.
That's not the point. You were referring to flash as replacing it. It isn't going to happen for few years. There will always be people who prefer more storage.
Look at how many people here who have complained about the small amount of storage the flash models have. Same thing for the iPhone.
Apple understands this as well. Otherwise, they wouldn't be increasing the storage as time goes on.
Buy the time the iTouch reaches 100 GB, several years from now, the Classic, if it does still exist, will have reached over 300 GB. But, 100 GB is close to what most people would ever need. However, if enough people still buy a Classic, or whatever form the top storage model becomes at that time, then Apple will continue to offer it.
That's not the point. You were referring to flash as replacing it. It isn't going to happen for few years. There will always be people who prefer more storage.
Look at how many people here who have complained about the small amount of storage the flash models have. Same thing for the iPhone.
Apple understands this as well. Otherwise, they wouldn't be increasing the storage as time goes on.
Buy the time the iTouch reaches 100 GB, several years from now, the Classic, if it does still exist, will have reached over 300 GB. But, 100 GB is close to what most people would ever need. However, if enough people still buy a Classic, or whatever form the top storage model becomes at that time, then Apple will continue to offer it.
I concur. If all costs involved are less than the projected net profit it will continue to be sold.
We've seen many companies sell devices for many years after they were considered "obsolete" by the majority in order to make a buck.
It makes about the same amount of sense as saying 3G alone will recover Apples lost prices. On a device that currently only accounts for about 3% of Apples revenue.
I don't think anyone in the investor community seriously doubts that if the iPhone upside/growth story was looking better at this point, Apple's stock would go up quite a bit. Heck, AAPL saw a bump just a couple of days ago, in part from Apple CFO Tim Cook saying that Apple wasn't married to the single carrier model... and that flexibility is seen as being a positive for the iPhone's growth. Not too hard to connect the dots from there.
Quote:
So far no one seems to care enough about the BJ 2 to do a thorough review of its battery life claims. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't seem to have a large increase in 3G time on the BJ 2.
And I'm just pointing out that Anandtech found his web browsing battery life claims to be off by a factor of three or so, which is huge. My guess... Seth was in a 3G fringe area or had significant building interference. Both can fubar results regarding batt life. He also may have had a defective batt or phone.
Quote:
O2 reports that the iPhone is its best selling phone. O2 subscriptions and sales are at record highs. The iPhone brings O2 30% more revenue per customer than the average phone.
O2 missed its iPhone sales goals (just a fact), and is spinning madly. Nothing new there... I predicted it months ago, in fact.
Quote:
Even though 3G is widely available in Europe. The number of actual 3G subscribers is comparatively small. I've been asking some of my Euro friends here in NYC if they demand to have 3G, most of them did not seem to care, some didn't even know what I was talking about.
Yeah... we've had this discussion several times before. As you've been told and should understand by now, the iPhone increases data usage and hence demand for 3G, by virtue of its better user experience (Safari vs minibrowser, real HTML vs baby HTML).
Even your man Seth Weintraub, the guy with the battery life problems, understands this:
"Survey after survey shows that iPhone users are surfing much more than users of any other device."
And that's on EDGE. Imagine what it'll be like on 3G.
Your man Weintraub also seems to understand that 3G will be a definite help to iPhone sales, and that the Euros, especially, have been unhappy with the current situation:
"While AT&T has been upgrading most of its larger markets to 3G access, it's a different story in Europe, where 3G is almost ubiquitous; the outrage over EDGE has been much stronger there.
Even so, a lot of first-generation iPhone users will want to jump on the 3G bandwagon, becoming repeat buyers and no doubt spurring sales beyond what they would have been over the same period had Apple started with a 3G iPhone."
Hmm... interesting points, especially since they contrast with your own positions. Sorry Teno, but it is kinda funny when a spinner can't even quote sources that agree with his spin.
My one bone to pick with him (aside from his odd batt life problems) is his last sentence. If he's talking about the US, he's right, but it seems pretty obvious that, in Europe, Apple should've started with a 3G model. As even Seth himself admits, the outrage over no 3G has indeed been much stronger over there.
But he does say elsewhere that Apple will need to launch with a 3G model in Asia though, so I'll give him some consolation prize props there.
I don't think anyone in the investor community seriously doubts that if the iPhone upside/growth story was looking better at this point, Apple's stock would go up quite a bit.
Of course more sales of any Apple product helps support that stability of APPL. I'm just saying no one little part of any product will suddenly boost the whole stock. All parts of the whole need to work together.
Quote:
Heck, AAPL saw a bump just a couple of days ago, in part from Apple CFO Tim Cook saying that Apple wasn't married to the single carrier model... and that flexibility is seen as being a positive for the iPhone's growth. Not too hard to connect the dots from there.
His talk was to boost investor confidence that Apple is headed in a good direction. The stock received a bump with no official confirmation of a 3G iPhone.
Quote:
O2 missed its iPhone sales goals (just a fact), and is spinning madly. Nothing new there... I predicted it months ago, in fact.
The way you throw around the term spin, I doubt you have a firm grasp on what the term actually means. I'm not sure why you keep pressing the issue as though business runs on sales projections and not actual sales.
O2 missing its sales goal is a fact. But is only a simple surface analysis of the situation. O2 reports that its had one of its best quarters with big subscriber growth and revenue growth. This is fact and not spin. No one any longer gives a flip about sales goals. Because the whole point is actual sales.
Quote:
Your man Weintraub also seems to understand that 3G will be a definite help to iPhone sales, and that the Euros, especially, have been unhappy with the current situation:
Hmm... interesting points, especially since they contrast with your own positions. Sorry Teno, but it is kinda funny when a spinner can't even quote sources that agree with his spin.
The title of the article is:"Pushing iPhone to the EDGE a smart move by Apple"
The whole point of his article is that he agrees Apple was right to choose battery life over data speed. You left those points out which are the far majority of the article. You attempt to portray the article as saying something that it does not. That is the definition of spin.
That's not the point. You were referring to flash as replacing it. It isn't going to happen for few years. There will always be people who prefer more storage.
My point is that the Touch will replace the Classic. Touch storage does not have to equal Classic storage for that to happen.
Quote:
Buy the time the iTouch reaches 100 GB, several years from now,
Apple went from 8GB to 16GB in six months. Then to 32GB in another six months. Barring an unforeseen problems in flash development 120GB will be within reach sooner than later.
Quote:
I concur. If all costs involved are less than the projected net profit it will continue to be sold. We've seen many companies sell devices for many years after they were considered "obsolete" by the majority in order to make a buck.
Yes but look at Apples pattern. Apple killed the mini when it was selling extremely well and replaced it with the lower capacity iPod nano. The mini could have increased in storage but the nano was thinner. The nano only continues to grow smaller.
I think Apple is ready to kill the Classic. Storage is the only reason it still exists. Once the Touch hits the right point the Classic is done.
In the states, there are FCC-enforced bandwidth limits in the W-CDMA spectrum. By "bandwidth," I also mean bandwidth, and not data-rate. I'm not sure what exactly the limit is, but the 14.4Mbps option, I would say, is likely out of the question.
AT&T's 850MHz HSPA network is capable of 14.4Mbit via software update to the base stations. THe reason they don't activate it today is they need to upgrade the backhaul to the transmitters too.
14.4Mbit HSPA uses the same 5MHz channel that it currently uses for 3.6Mbit, just a more efficient coding.
AT&T's 850MHz HSPA network is capable of 14.4Mbit via software update to the base stations. THe reason they don't activate it today is they need to upgrade the backhaul to the transmitters too.
14.4Mbit HSPA uses the same 5MHz channel that it currently uses for 3.6Mbit, just a more efficient coding.
Is it really more efficient coding or just simply denser coding? Aren't there range and signal strength considerations as well? Denser coding washes out more quickly, reducing its effective range.
Is it really more efficient coding or just simply denser coding? Aren't there range and signal strength considerations as well? Denser coding washes out more quickly, reducing its effective range.
Almost certainly it's just an increase in the density of the QAM constellation, which indeed is more prone to interference.
Let's hope they fix the 'no voice dialing' thing too... out here in California, by law you won't be able to drive with a cellphone pressed to your head anymore, as of July.
you can't dial with the phone up to your ear. the touchscreen gets turned off by the IR. and there is a 3rd-party app already that does voicedial, so i'm sure there will be one when the sdk comes out.
you can't dial with the phone up to your ear. the touchscreen gets turned off by the IR. and there is a 3rd-party app already that does voicedial, so i'm sure there will be one when the sdk comes out.
It's obvious that he's talking about both voice dialing while driving and handsfree.
While the iPhone comes with headphones/mic, it would be nice if they allowed it to work seamlessly with more cars via Bluetooth and add hands-free dialing.
It's obvious that he's talking about both voice dialing while driving and handsfree.
While the iPhone comes with headphones/mic, it would be nice if they allowed it to work seamlessly with more cars via Bluetooth and add hands-free dialing.
i guess it doesn't seem that obvious to me. he brought up voice dialing then said that the law makes it so you can't drive with your phone to your ear.
if his problem is the law, then he already has an answer. if his problem is no voice dialing in general (with no regard to the law) then he should have said that.
as i said, there is already an app that gives voice dialing so i'm sure when the SDK comes out, a voice dialing app will be soon to follow.
My point is that the Touch will replace the Classic. Touch storage does not have to equal Classic storage for that to happen.
Sorry for being tardy. My daughter's school had a show that I work. It's over now.
I think that there will always be people who are mainly interested in storage, for any number of reasons. Maybe they want to bring movies with them for an extended trip. Maybe they want to store all of their various collections on it. Maybe they keep other material on it, as a backup drive, etc. There are lots of reasons why they may want as much storage as possible. They may rather have a simpler, cheaper machine with much more storage, than a machine that is more sophisticated, expensive, and with much less storage.
Quote:
Apple went from 8GB to 16GB in six months. Then to 32GB in another six months. Barring an unforeseen problems in flash development 120GB will be within reach sooner than later.
I doubt it. You're saying, by using that progression, that in another year, we will be seeing 128GB iPods. Not going to happen.
When Apple was using 8Gb, the memory was around for a while already. The same thing was true for 16GB. Even the 32GB memory isn't all that new, just lower pricing has enabled it, but even then, you might notice that Apple raised prices by $100 to accommodate it. The Classic 160 costs $349. The 32GB iPod Touch costs $499. That's a huge difference. That difference will be here for years.
Quote:
Yes but look at Apples pattern. Apple killed the mini when it was selling extremely well and replaced it with the lower capacity iPod nano. The mini could have increased in storage but the nano was thinner. The nano only continues to grow smaller.
The Nano was a totally different player. And yes, it was noticeably smaller. But, you're wrong about the new Nano, it's, if anything, bigger, shorter, but bigger. It's never going to get smaller because of Apple's new emphasis on screen size. It's all about iTunes video, and movie rentals now.
Quote:
I think Apple is ready to kill the Classic. Storage is the only reason it still exists. Once the Touch hits the right point the Classic is done.
Well, we can talk this one until the cows come home. Until they do it, we won't know, so There's no point in discussing it.
I doubt it. You're saying, by using that progression, that in another year, we will be seeing 128GB iPods. Not going to happen. When Apple was using 8Gb, the memory was around for a while already. The same thing was true for 16GB. Even the 32GB memory isn't all that new, just lower pricing has enabled it, but even then, you might notice that Apple raised prices by $100 to accommodate it.
Unless I've missed it I haven't seen many mobile devices commonly using 16GB or 32GB of flash storage.
I'm just saying I doubt it will take many years. Before the iPhone no phone was using more than 512MB of internal flash, now competitors are more and more beginning to use 8GB. HTC and Nokia announced a 16GB phones near the same time the iPhone was boosted to 16GB. This will all push Apple to be aggressive on increasing storage.
I'm not sure of your point. Yes quite obviously there will be some type of price increase with storage increase.
Quote:
The Nano was a totally different player. And yes, it was noticeably smaller. But, you're wrong about the new Nano, it's, if anything, bigger, shorter, but bigger.
The nano was a completely new player but clearly replaced the mini.
As for the new nano we can compromise and say they took some of the height and moved it into the width. Volume wise in the palm of your hand the new nano feels smaller.
I'm just saying I doubt it will take many years. Before the iPhone no phone was using more than 512MB of internal flash, now competitors are more and more beginning to use 8GB. HTC and Nokia announced a 16GB phones near the same time the iPhone was boosted to 16GB. This will all push Apple to be aggressive on increasing storage.
Is there any Moore's Law* predictions on the doubling of SSD?
* Layman exponential definition, not specifically a 24-month timeframe
Unless I've missed it I haven't seen many mobile devices commonly using 16GB or 32GB of flash storage.
There aren't a whole slew of them. But the flash is used in Compact Flash cards SD cards, and others as well. 32MB is simply more chips.
Quote:
I'm just saying I doubt it will take many years. Before the iPhone no phone was using more than 512MB of internal flash, now competitors are more and more beginning to use 8GB. HTC and Nokia announced a 16GB phones near the same time the iPhone was boosted to 16GB. This will all push Apple to be aggressive on increasing storage.
I agree. It won't take "many" years. But it will take a few. With demand for ultralights, both 1.8" HDDs and SSD will benefit from increased production, which will result in larger sizes, faster speeds, and cheaper devices.
What I'm saying here, is the the HDD is well ahead on two of the three counts, and the last, speed, isn't much of an issue on an iPod, or iPhone.
Quote:
I'm not sure of your point. Yes quite obviously there will be some type of price increase with storage increase.
The point is that for those with high storage needs, for whatever reason, the much higher price of flash will, for some time at least, act as a detriment.
Quote:
The nano was a completely new player but clearly replaced the mini.
Yes, of course. I didn't argue that.
Quote:
As for the new nano we can compromise and say they took some of the height and moved it into the width. Volume wise in the palm of your hand the new nano feels smaller.
Is there any Moore's Law* predictions on the doubling of SSD?
* Layman exponential definition, not specifically a 24-month timeframe
It wouldn't be the SSD, because that depends on how many chips the manufacturer wants to put into it. Such as how many platters a HDD manufacturer wants to put into the HDD, rather than the areal density on each platter. It would be a question of the chips themselves.
iPods don't use SSDs.
I would imagine that it would be about the same timeframe as for any other major memory type.
Comments
And just why would they do that? I just can't see all the first gen users dropping a perfectly good phone for another. Sure some will but that is far from ALL!
In Europe, it should be a significant number. Because over there, the current 2.5G iPhone usually isn't seeing a slow EDGE network like it is in the US, but rather, a super-slow GPRS network.
Like 30 to 40 kilobits per second. Wheeee.
Given that, plenty of Euros should be wanting to move up to the 3G model... stat! Can ya blame 'em?
.
That makes no sense. Oh wait... you were trying to be funny. My condolences.
It makes about the same amount of sense as saying 3G alone will recover Apples lost prices. On a device that currently only accounts for about 3% of Apples revenue.
Golly... Seth's experience sure doesn't seem to be everyone's, considering that Anandtech saw nearly 3 hours web browsing from a BlackJack I, which has a smaller battery and an older, less-efficient chipset than the 'Jack II:
So far no one seems to care enough about the BJ 2 to do a thorough review of its battery life claims. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't seem to have a large increase in 3G time on the BJ 2.
Well, that isn't what me and solip were debating. He says 3G will double sales, I said it won't, but that it'll help quite a lot (especially in Europe) and that the initial sales boom will be quite large.
O2 reports that the iPhone is its best selling phone. O2 subscriptions and sales are at record highs. The iPhone brings O2 30% more revenue per customer than the average phone.
Even though 3G is widely available in Europe. The number of actual 3G subscribers is comparatively small. I've been asking some of my Euro friends here in NYC if they demand to have 3G, most of them did not seem to care, some didn't even know what I was talking about.
We shall see. Even though 3G is widely available in Europe. The number of actual 3G subscribers is comparatively small. I've been asking some of my Euro friends here in NYC if they demand to have 3G, most of them did not seem to care, some didn't even know what I was talking about.
I've asked my friend's and the ones with iPhones have all said they will get a 3G version ASAP. There are people I know with other smartphones and regular phones that also plan to get iPhones once 3G is available.
Humorously, the ones that seem most adamant about a 3G iPhone are the ones that made the iPhone their first experience with a smartphone. It seems the Safari browser implementation is a major seller.
Plus, as I stated, the biggest complaint seems to be the lack of 3G. But who knows, perhaps those people will be calling for a 64GB 4G version before they trade in their circa 1996 StarTAC phone.
I've asked my friend's and the ones with iPhones have all said they will get a 3G version ASAP. There are people I know with other smartphones and regular phones that also plan to get iPhones once 3G is available.
I think the Euro's get painted with a wide brush of being overly techno savvy. I just haven't seen that of the ones I know. Some of them are tech savvy and demand 3G, most are busy living life and don't pay much attention to the technology inside their phone, and some don't know anything and don't particularly care.
It doesn't have to be the same size. The nano far out sells the Classic. The Touch by this point or very soon will outsell the Classic. Once the Touch can broach 100GB I don't think it far fetched Apple may drop the Classic sooner than later.
That's not the point. You were referring to flash as replacing it. It isn't going to happen for few years. There will always be people who prefer more storage.
Look at how many people here who have complained about the small amount of storage the flash models have. Same thing for the iPhone.
Apple understands this as well. Otherwise, they wouldn't be increasing the storage as time goes on.
Buy the time the iTouch reaches 100 GB, several years from now, the Classic, if it does still exist, will have reached over 300 GB. But, 100 GB is close to what most people would ever need. However, if enough people still buy a Classic, or whatever form the top storage model becomes at that time, then Apple will continue to offer it.
That's not the point. You were referring to flash as replacing it. It isn't going to happen for few years. There will always be people who prefer more storage.
Look at how many people here who have complained about the small amount of storage the flash models have. Same thing for the iPhone.
Apple understands this as well. Otherwise, they wouldn't be increasing the storage as time goes on.
Buy the time the iTouch reaches 100 GB, several years from now, the Classic, if it does still exist, will have reached over 300 GB. But, 100 GB is close to what most people would ever need. However, if enough people still buy a Classic, or whatever form the top storage model becomes at that time, then Apple will continue to offer it.
I concur. If all costs involved are less than the projected net profit it will continue to be sold.
We've seen many companies sell devices for many years after they were considered "obsolete" by the majority in order to make a buck.
It makes about the same amount of sense as saying 3G alone will recover Apples lost prices. On a device that currently only accounts for about 3% of Apples revenue.
I don't think anyone in the investor community seriously doubts that if the iPhone upside/growth story was looking better at this point, Apple's stock would go up quite a bit. Heck, AAPL saw a bump just a couple of days ago, in part from Apple CFO Tim Cook saying that Apple wasn't married to the single carrier model... and that flexibility is seen as being a positive for the iPhone's growth. Not too hard to connect the dots from there.
So far no one seems to care enough about the BJ 2 to do a thorough review of its battery life claims. I'm just pointing out that he doesn't seem to have a large increase in 3G time on the BJ 2.
And I'm just pointing out that Anandtech found his web browsing battery life claims to be off by a factor of three or so, which is huge. My guess... Seth was in a 3G fringe area or had significant building interference. Both can fubar results regarding batt life. He also may have had a defective batt or phone.
O2 reports that the iPhone is its best selling phone. O2 subscriptions and sales are at record highs. The iPhone brings O2 30% more revenue per customer than the average phone.
O2 missed its iPhone sales goals (just a fact), and is spinning madly. Nothing new there... I predicted it months ago, in fact.
Even though 3G is widely available in Europe. The number of actual 3G subscribers is comparatively small. I've been asking some of my Euro friends here in NYC if they demand to have 3G, most of them did not seem to care, some didn't even know what I was talking about.
Yeah... we've had this discussion several times before. As you've been told and should understand by now, the iPhone increases data usage and hence demand for 3G, by virtue of its better user experience (Safari vs minibrowser, real HTML vs baby HTML).
Even your man Seth Weintraub, the guy with the battery life problems, understands this:
"Survey after survey shows that iPhone users are surfing much more than users of any other device."
And that's on EDGE. Imagine what it'll be like on 3G.
Your man Weintraub also seems to understand that 3G will be a definite help to iPhone sales, and that the Euros, especially, have been unhappy with the current situation:
"While AT&T has been upgrading most of its larger markets to 3G access, it's a different story in Europe, where 3G is almost ubiquitous; the outrage over EDGE has been much stronger there.
Even so, a lot of first-generation iPhone users will want to jump on the 3G bandwagon, becoming repeat buyers and no doubt spurring sales beyond what they would have been over the same period had Apple started with a 3G iPhone."
Hmm... interesting points, especially since they contrast with your own positions. Sorry Teno, but it is kinda funny when a spinner can't even quote sources that agree with his spin.
My one bone to pick with him (aside from his odd batt life problems) is his last sentence. If he's talking about the US, he's right, but it seems pretty obvious that, in Europe, Apple should've started with a 3G model. As even Seth himself admits, the outrage over no 3G has indeed been much stronger over there.
But he does say elsewhere that Apple will need to launch with a 3G model in Asia though, so I'll give him some consolation prize props there.
.
I don't think anyone in the investor community seriously doubts that if the iPhone upside/growth story was looking better at this point, Apple's stock would go up quite a bit.
Of course more sales of any Apple product helps support that stability of APPL. I'm just saying no one little part of any product will suddenly boost the whole stock. All parts of the whole need to work together.
Heck, AAPL saw a bump just a couple of days ago, in part from Apple CFO Tim Cook saying that Apple wasn't married to the single carrier model... and that flexibility is seen as being a positive for the iPhone's growth. Not too hard to connect the dots from there.
His talk was to boost investor confidence that Apple is headed in a good direction. The stock received a bump with no official confirmation of a 3G iPhone.
O2 missed its iPhone sales goals (just a fact), and is spinning madly. Nothing new there... I predicted it months ago, in fact.
The way you throw around the term spin, I doubt you have a firm grasp on what the term actually means. I'm not sure why you keep pressing the issue as though business runs on sales projections and not actual sales.
O2 missing its sales goal is a fact. But is only a simple surface analysis of the situation. O2 reports that its had one of its best quarters with big subscriber growth and revenue growth. This is fact and not spin. No one any longer gives a flip about sales goals. Because the whole point is actual sales.
Your man Weintraub also seems to understand that 3G will be a definite help to iPhone sales, and that the Euros, especially, have been unhappy with the current situation:
Hmm... interesting points, especially since they contrast with your own positions. Sorry Teno, but it is kinda funny when a spinner can't even quote sources that agree with his spin.
The title of the article is:"Pushing iPhone to the EDGE a smart move by Apple"
The whole point of his article is that he agrees Apple was right to choose battery life over data speed. You left those points out which are the far majority of the article. You attempt to portray the article as saying something that it does not. That is the definition of spin.
That's not the point. You were referring to flash as replacing it. It isn't going to happen for few years. There will always be people who prefer more storage.
My point is that the Touch will replace the Classic. Touch storage does not have to equal Classic storage for that to happen.
Buy the time the iTouch reaches 100 GB, several years from now,
Apple went from 8GB to 16GB in six months. Then to 32GB in another six months. Barring an unforeseen problems in flash development 120GB will be within reach sooner than later.
I concur. If all costs involved are less than the projected net profit it will continue to be sold. We've seen many companies sell devices for many years after they were considered "obsolete" by the majority in order to make a buck.
Yes but look at Apples pattern. Apple killed the mini when it was selling extremely well and replaced it with the lower capacity iPod nano. The mini could have increased in storage but the nano was thinner. The nano only continues to grow smaller.
I think Apple is ready to kill the Classic. Storage is the only reason it still exists. Once the Touch hits the right point the Classic is done.
In the states, there are FCC-enforced bandwidth limits in the W-CDMA spectrum. By "bandwidth," I also mean bandwidth, and not data-rate. I'm not sure what exactly the limit is, but the 14.4Mbps option, I would say, is likely out of the question.
AT&T's 850MHz HSPA network is capable of 14.4Mbit via software update to the base stations. THe reason they don't activate it today is they need to upgrade the backhaul to the transmitters too.
14.4Mbit HSPA uses the same 5MHz channel that it currently uses for 3.6Mbit, just a more efficient coding.
AT&T's 850MHz HSPA network is capable of 14.4Mbit via software update to the base stations. THe reason they don't activate it today is they need to upgrade the backhaul to the transmitters too.
14.4Mbit HSPA uses the same 5MHz channel that it currently uses for 3.6Mbit, just a more efficient coding.
Is it really more efficient coding or just simply denser coding? Aren't there range and signal strength considerations as well? Denser coding washes out more quickly, reducing its effective range.
Is it really more efficient coding or just simply denser coding? Aren't there range and signal strength considerations as well? Denser coding washes out more quickly, reducing its effective range.
Almost certainly it's just an increase in the density of the QAM constellation, which indeed is more prone to interference.
Let's hope they fix the 'no voice dialing' thing too... out here in California, by law you won't be able to drive with a cellphone pressed to your head anymore, as of July.
you can't dial with the phone up to your ear. the touchscreen gets turned off by the IR. and there is a 3rd-party app already that does voicedial, so i'm sure there will be one when the sdk comes out.
you can't dial with the phone up to your ear. the touchscreen gets turned off by the IR. and there is a 3rd-party app already that does voicedial, so i'm sure there will be one when the sdk comes out.
It's obvious that he's talking about both voice dialing while driving and handsfree.
While the iPhone comes with headphones/mic, it would be nice if they allowed it to work seamlessly with more cars via Bluetooth and add hands-free dialing.
It's obvious that he's talking about both voice dialing while driving and handsfree.
While the iPhone comes with headphones/mic, it would be nice if they allowed it to work seamlessly with more cars via Bluetooth and add hands-free dialing.
i guess it doesn't seem that obvious to me. he brought up voice dialing then said that the law makes it so you can't drive with your phone to your ear.
if his problem is the law, then he already has an answer. if his problem is no voice dialing in general (with no regard to the law) then he should have said that.
as i said, there is already an app that gives voice dialing so i'm sure when the SDK comes out, a voice dialing app will be soon to follow.
My point is that the Touch will replace the Classic. Touch storage does not have to equal Classic storage for that to happen.
Sorry for being tardy. My daughter's school had a show that I work. It's over now.
I think that there will always be people who are mainly interested in storage, for any number of reasons. Maybe they want to bring movies with them for an extended trip. Maybe they want to store all of their various collections on it. Maybe they keep other material on it, as a backup drive, etc. There are lots of reasons why they may want as much storage as possible. They may rather have a simpler, cheaper machine with much more storage, than a machine that is more sophisticated, expensive, and with much less storage.
Apple went from 8GB to 16GB in six months. Then to 32GB in another six months. Barring an unforeseen problems in flash development 120GB will be within reach sooner than later.
I doubt it. You're saying, by using that progression, that in another year, we will be seeing 128GB iPods. Not going to happen.
When Apple was using 8Gb, the memory was around for a while already. The same thing was true for 16GB. Even the 32GB memory isn't all that new, just lower pricing has enabled it, but even then, you might notice that Apple raised prices by $100 to accommodate it. The Classic 160 costs $349. The 32GB iPod Touch costs $499. That's a huge difference. That difference will be here for years.
Yes but look at Apples pattern. Apple killed the mini when it was selling extremely well and replaced it with the lower capacity iPod nano. The mini could have increased in storage but the nano was thinner. The nano only continues to grow smaller.
The Nano was a totally different player. And yes, it was noticeably smaller. But, you're wrong about the new Nano, it's, if anything, bigger, shorter, but bigger. It's never going to get smaller because of Apple's new emphasis on screen size. It's all about iTunes video, and movie rentals now.
I think Apple is ready to kill the Classic. Storage is the only reason it still exists. Once the Touch hits the right point the Classic is done.
Well, we can talk this one until the cows come home. Until they do it, we won't know, so There's no point in discussing it.
I doubt it. You're saying, by using that progression, that in another year, we will be seeing 128GB iPods. Not going to happen. When Apple was using 8Gb, the memory was around for a while already. The same thing was true for 16GB. Even the 32GB memory isn't all that new, just lower pricing has enabled it, but even then, you might notice that Apple raised prices by $100 to accommodate it.
Unless I've missed it I haven't seen many mobile devices commonly using 16GB or 32GB of flash storage.
I'm just saying I doubt it will take many years. Before the iPhone no phone was using more than 512MB of internal flash, now competitors are more and more beginning to use 8GB. HTC and Nokia announced a 16GB phones near the same time the iPhone was boosted to 16GB. This will all push Apple to be aggressive on increasing storage.
I'm not sure of your point. Yes quite obviously there will be some type of price increase with storage increase.
The Nano was a totally different player. And yes, it was noticeably smaller. But, you're wrong about the new Nano, it's, if anything, bigger, shorter, but bigger.
The nano was a completely new player but clearly replaced the mini.
As for the new nano we can compromise and say they took some of the height and moved it into the width. Volume wise in the palm of your hand the new nano feels smaller.
I'm just saying I doubt it will take many years. Before the iPhone no phone was using more than 512MB of internal flash, now competitors are more and more beginning to use 8GB. HTC and Nokia announced a 16GB phones near the same time the iPhone was boosted to 16GB. This will all push Apple to be aggressive on increasing storage.
Is there any Moore's Law* predictions on the doubling of SSD?
* Layman exponential definition, not specifically a 24-month timeframe
Unless I've missed it I haven't seen many mobile devices commonly using 16GB or 32GB of flash storage.
There aren't a whole slew of them. But the flash is used in Compact Flash cards SD cards, and others as well. 32MB is simply more chips.
I'm just saying I doubt it will take many years. Before the iPhone no phone was using more than 512MB of internal flash, now competitors are more and more beginning to use 8GB. HTC and Nokia announced a 16GB phones near the same time the iPhone was boosted to 16GB. This will all push Apple to be aggressive on increasing storage.
I agree. It won't take "many" years. But it will take a few. With demand for ultralights, both 1.8" HDDs and SSD will benefit from increased production, which will result in larger sizes, faster speeds, and cheaper devices.
What I'm saying here, is the the HDD is well ahead on two of the three counts, and the last, speed, isn't much of an issue on an iPod, or iPhone.
I'm not sure of your point. Yes quite obviously there will be some type of price increase with storage increase.
The point is that for those with high storage needs, for whatever reason, the much higher price of flash will, for some time at least, act as a detriment.
The nano was a completely new player but clearly replaced the mini.
Yes, of course. I didn't argue that.
As for the new nano we can compromise and say they took some of the height and moved it into the width. Volume wise in the palm of your hand the new nano feels smaller.
Well, we can call it a draw on that one.
Is there any Moore's Law* predictions on the doubling of SSD?
* Layman exponential definition, not specifically a 24-month timeframe
It wouldn't be the SSD, because that depends on how many chips the manufacturer wants to put into it. Such as how many platters a HDD manufacturer wants to put into the HDD, rather than the areal density on each platter. It would be a question of the chips themselves.
iPods don't use SSDs.
I would imagine that it would be about the same timeframe as for any other major memory type.