So because you are not permitted to impugn solipsism's capacity to understand something, then that prohibits you from making your argument about Nokia and the iPhone?
Make any argument you want about Nokia.
Make any argument you want about the iPhone.
Do not make any argument about someone's ability to understand something. That is irrelevant and against the posting guidelines.
I suppose I could make an argument about your ability to understand what constitutes a personal attack, but that would itself be a personal attack, so I won't make that argument.
I think I agreed with solipsism's point. At least I said I did, so this would imply that I do understand what he is trying to say. I also made note of his point about the forum moderator. I understood this as well. Considering I just made an argument about me understanding myself, did I make a personal attack on me?
This was a joke. I catch your drift.
To sum up solipsism was correct and I agree with him.
What was I thinking. Yes of course Nokia will be dominated by a company with only one crippled product. Tomorrow flags in Helsinki will be flown at half mast in honor of Apple driving them out of business with an iPod that can make calls. Huge layoffs globally are expected. Steve Jobs has decreed from on high via if will personally give each layed off employee one million dollars from petty cash. Steve Jobs is looking to move into the roll me master of the universe on a full time basis. More to come.
Well judging by the way it's developing a half-baked touchscreen device in a blind panic I'd say that Nokia is at least shitting itself at the moment. Longer term, if Apple doesn't stumble, it's definitely got a problem with Apple skimming off the cream of the market, and leaving it to sell low margin basic phones to the third world. The fact is that Apple have a very good brand and high product customer satisfaction. Nokia, on the other hand are losing it. Apple will come up to par with Nokia in hardware at some point but it can't compete on software. I can definitely see the day when Nokia is number 2 to Apple in phone revenues if not unit sales. I guess one could have scoffed at Apple beating Sony in portable music players too, but we all know how that turned out.
Well judging by the way it's developing a half-baked touchscreen device in a blind panic I'd say that Nokia is at least shitting itself at the moment. Longer term, if Apple doesn't stumble, it's definitely got a problem with Apple skimming off the cream of the market, and leaving it to sell low margin basic phones to the third world. The fact is that Apple have a very good brand and high product customer satisfaction. Nokia, on the other hand are losing it. Apple will come up to par with Nokia in hardware at some point but it can't compete on software. I can definitely see the day when Nokia is number 2 to Apple in phone revenues if not unit sales. I guess one could have scoffed at Apple beating Sony in portable music players too, but we all know how that turned out.
Uhhhh.... Here we go again. Nokia's devices, the IT are positioned for the particular market that they are aimed. They did not develop an iPod then stick a phone on it and call it revolutionary. Nokia developed a Linux tablet that is clearly aimed at a select market.
As far as the third world is concerned, the US seems to fit that bill in regards to Nokia. In the Mid East, Europe, Asia, and parts of South America, Nokia high-end phones are selling and selling quite well. Could you provide a reference as to what you consider a low-end phone. To have a much better idea of the Nokia portfolio, I would suggest you visit: www.nokia.co.uk. Here you will find a plethora of high-end phones that have better specs, and features that the iPhone is sorely lacking. Nokia actually has a smartphone line that performs smartphone functions.
Your post was equally as well stated. The thing is, I never said the iPhone was crap. It is far from it. It is however not the revolutionary device (my opinion) that many here (some of them blind followers) think. It is an evolutionary device.
You are mostly comparing surface elements. The hardware and the missing functionality that other phones currently have.
What truly is revolutionary about the iPhone is the software. The OS and the API's have not even been used to their fullest potential.
Well, uhhhh.... whatever. I am enjoying my 7.2 mb/sec on my Nokia so I really do not care much what my iPhone is doing. I have been enjoying 3G speeds, video calls, IPTV and such for a while now. So once again, EDGE, smedge. I could not care less.
Right, you can't actually successfully argue your point, so you're going to convince us all about how right you are by telling us that you own a Nokia product. Congratulations on your purchase. I can see that not only does it allow you to surf the net at an amazing 7.2Mbps, but it also lets you be smug and condescending. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to assist the user with respect to intelligence or wisdom. Maybe if you went out and spent more money on some consumer electronics you'd eventually get that? And you'd be more attractive to opposite sex too. Be sure to tell us how you go.
Anyway, they all said the test was aimed at US phones, with US networks were as Asian, European, and Mid Eastern 3G networks were more or less the same. Much of this was way over my head, but I understood some of it. In the end, they said that if a Nokia with a 1050 mAh 3.7v battery can run a phone all day with 3G, the iPhone should be able to last all day as well. They felt the lack of 3G was marketing hype because AT&T didn't have the network at the time and Apple wanted the phone out there..
You cannot just compare two phones this way based on 3G alone. Each phone budgets its energy differently. Nokia phones have smaller screens, slower processors, and far less internal memory. These differences significantly alter the allocation of power between Nokia phones and the iPhone.
Right, you can't actually successfully argue your point, so you're going to convince us all about how right you are by telling us that you own a Nokia product. Congratulations on your purchase.
Sapporbaby has claimed for awhile to own two Nokia phones, an iPhone, and an iPod Touch.
Uhhhh.... Here we go again. Nokia's devices, the IT are positioned for the particular market that they are aimed. They did not develop an iPod then stick a phone on it and call it revolutionary. Nokia developed a Linux tablet that is clearly aimed at a select market.
As far as the third world is concerned, the US seems to fit that bill in regards to Nokia. In the Mid East, Europe, Asia, and parts of South America, Nokia high-end phones are selling and selling quite well. Could you provide a reference as to what you consider a low-end phone. To have a much better idea of the Nokia portfolio, I would suggest you visit: www.nokia.co.uk. Here you will find a plethora of high-end phones that have better specs, and features that the iPhone is sorely lacking. Nokia actually has a smartphone line that performs smartphone functions.
You seem to be so smitten with Nokia that you don't actually bother to read posts or think through your replies. Yes Nokia makes "smart phone" products. They don't sell very many compared to their low end phones and each quarter they sell less. We don't need to define the low and high end, the evidence is in the fact that Nokia's average selling price goes down each quarter. And I've owned many Nokia phones and am very familiar with their product line.
But my point is that Nokia cannot complete with Apple on software and customer satisfaction, and so will eventually cede the high end.
You are mostly comparing surface elements. The hardware and the missing functionality that other phones currently have.
What truly is revolutionary about the iPhone is the software. The OS and the API's have not even been used to their fullest potential.
What good is the OS if the rest of the phone is not up to it. As I disclaimed, these are my opinions that I developed after years of using smartphones. In comparison, the iPhone falls way short. Now if you have experience with other phones by all means bring it forth. For many, the iPhone is their first entry into the "smartphone" arena, but for others, the iPhone is just a natural progression.
Right, you can't actually successfully argue your point, so you're going to convince us all about how right you are by telling us that you own a Nokia product. Congratulations on your purchase. I can see that not only does it allow you to surf the net at an amazing 7.2Mbps, but it also lets you be smug and condescending. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to assist the user with respect to intelligence or wisdom. Maybe if you went out and spent more money on some consumer electronics you'd eventually get that? And you'd be more attractive to opposite sex too. Be sure to tell us how you go.
***Sigh***
Before continuing, maybe it would be a good idea to start from the beginning of this thread as many of your statements have been addressed by me and a few others.
As to convincing you. I thought I made it clear that I could not care what you believe or do not believe. I just don't. I did not know a phone was designed to assist with intelligence (can be gained with reading and experiencing new things), wisdom (starts with seeing the world from more than one prospective).
Sapporbaby has claimed for awhile to own two Nokia phones, an iPhone, and an iPod Touch.
??????????????????? Not sure what the significance of this is but okay.
BTW, everyone here claims something. I have not seen anyone post a receipt of their devices here online, so it could be assumed that everyone here is: "claiming".
What good is the OS if the rest of the phone is not up to it. As I disclaimed, these are my opinions that I developed after years of using smartphones. In comparison, the iPhone falls way short. Now if you have experience with other phones by all means bring it forth. For many, the iPhone is their first entry into the "smartphone" arena, but for others, the iPhone is just a natural progression.
Again you are looking at the surface. The underlying code structure is more important. The iPhone is using the same foundation and API's as the desktop OS. This is something no one else has done. This will allow the iPhone to run applications that in ways that other phones will not be able to.
Perhaps you just don't fully grasp what that means and you will have to wait and see what will come from it.
Again you are looking at the surface. The underlying code structure is more important. The iPhone is using the same foundation and API's as the desktop OS. This is something no one else has done. This will allow the iPhone to run applications that in ways that other phones will not be able to.
Perhaps you just don't fully grasp what that means and you will have to wait and see what will come from it.
Perhaps I do. Perhaps others have thought of this, but it did not seem applicable for their applications. Maybe SE and Nokia, and some of the other manufacturers do not see this as being important for their business. At the moment, many still don't. For Apple this is the right thing to do. Fine. Just because Apple thinks it is good, does not mean it the best thing in the world. Nokia and SE will still continue to do well with reincarnated versions of Symbian and beyond. This seems to be lost on anyone other than the most diehard Apple fans.
Personally, my money goes with what works. If it is Apple, Steve can buy a new mock-turtle neck on my dime. If Nokia fits the bill, then they get my money as well. I do not fall for the old Jedi Mind Trick.
the speed difference is going to be small because the phones processor and memory also plays a role in displaying that page to you. the real noticeable difference with edge/3g will be when you tether your phone to your computer... which you can't do
This is not true. The CPU on the iPhone is more than capable of handling the extra speed. We're not talking 100Mbps here - just maybe 1 Mbps or so, depending on network conditions.
One of the reasons that web site loads are not as fast on 3G as a straight download test would imply is that 3G latency is not significantly improved compared to 2.5G. A web page load of cnn.com will establish half a dozen TCP connections and send out maybe a hundred or more individual HTTP GET requests. Loading a web page quickly, therefore, requires good bandwidth *and* low latency. 3G gives the former, but still lacks in latency. A good latency with 3G is maybe 60-80ms compared with 10-30ms that you might get from your cable broadband.
Perhaps I do. Perhaps others have thought of this, but it did not seem applicable for their applications. Maybe SE and Nokia, and some of the other manufacturers do not see this as being important for their business. At the moment, many still don't. For Apple this is the right thing to do. Fine. Just because Apple thinks it is good, does not mean it the best thing in the world. Nokia and SE will still continue to do well with reincarnated versions of Symbian and beyond. This seems to be lost on anyone other than the most diehard Apple fans.
Those are a lot of maybe's. You fail to recognize what Apple has done is not easy. That is why no one else has done it.
MS cannot port XP or Vista for mobile devices. Symbian in its many forms and Blackberry were designed for mobile devices by their nature were easier to create than a desktop OS. Linux mobile in its many forms is not necessarily directly associated with desktop Linux. No one else has directly ported a desktop OS and its API's to an embedded mobile device.
Now your argument is that Apple may have a superior OS and development platform. In a highly competitive market others may have thought about it and decided they did not want to go the superior route. You do realize the OS and software platform are what directly control the hardware, functionality, and user interface. Its a very important part of the phone.
It does not really work to continue to reinvent old code. When faced with competition from newer more advanced code. Apple learned this in the 90's deciding to abandon OS 9 and its 18 year old API's. Started all over again with OS X. MS is also learning this lesson but is taking much longer to do anything about it.
Quote:
Personally, my money goes with what works. If it is Apple, Steve can buy a new mock-turtle neck on my dime. If Nokia fits the bill, then they get my money as well. I do not fall for the old Jedi Mind Trick.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All of the mobile platforms "work". What works for you is up to you.
??????????????????? Not sure what the significance of this is but okay.
You say you own an iPhone, admit you rarely use it. Many of your comments sound as if you've never touched one.
Quote:
BTW, everyone here claims something. I have not seen anyone post a receipt of their devices here online, so it could be assumed that everyone here is: "claiming".
Yes anyone can claim anything but there is a limit on what sounds believable. Most of the time people sound believable, sometimes they don't.
You say you own an iPhone, admit you rarely use it. Many of your comments sound as if you've never touched one.
And your point is? I can use it as little or as much as I like. I paid for it. I do not use it as much simply because it is a crippled device (my opinion). I use the iPod functions mostly. Would you like me to chart my usage and report back to you?
Quote:
Yes anyone can claim anything but there is a limit on what sounds believable. Most of the time people sound believable, sometimes they don't.
Really? Some of the things people say here sound very myopic and provincial, but then again, who cares? I surly don't. I only have to worry about a few people in my chain of command. I come to AI simply for entertainment and nothing else. There are some people here I respect greatly, even if I disagree with them. I do not waste my time riding the middle line so people will like or believe me one way or another.
And your point is? I can use it as little or as much as I like. I paid for it. I do not use it as much simply because it is a crippled device (my opinion). I use the iPod functions mostly. Would you like me to chart my usage and report back to you?
Your comments about the iPhone have been negative to an extreme. You basically say nothing good about it at all. When pointing out its marketshare accomplishments. Its glowing reviews and high customer satisfaction numbers. You find some way to dismiss it all. There are many people on AI who say they will not buy one until it as some type of missing feature they feel they must have. But generally they all admit that the phone currently does what it is designed to do exceedingly well.
Myself and other regular iPhone users point out parts of its functionality that you seem to not have experience with. Which means you really have not given it a fair and exhaustive chance.
I don't see the wisdom of using the iPhone as an iPod when for the price of it could buy two or three iPods.
Again you are looking at the surface. The underlying code structure is more important. The iPhone is using the same foundation and API's as the desktop OS. This is something no one else has done. This will allow the iPhone to run applications that in ways that other phones will not be able to.
Perhaps you just don't fully grasp what that means and you will have to wait and see what will come from it.
Whoa... didn't Sapporo just get yelled at by the mods a page back for saying much the same thing Teno is above?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby
Apple and others have been Nokia killers for as long as there were phones. At one time Ericsson was one paycheck away from buying Nokia, and look where things are now. If you are deluded enough to think that Nokia will simply sit by and not make a fight of the game proves that you lack the understanding involved to see products on a global scale.
One of the reasons that web site loads are not as fast on 3G as a straight download test would imply is that 3G latency is not significantly improved compared to 2.5G. A web page load of cnn.com will establish half a dozen TCP connections and send out maybe a hundred or more individual HTTP GET requests. Loading a web page quickly, therefore, requires good bandwidth *and* low latency. 3G gives the former, but still lacks in latency. A good latency with 3G is maybe 60-80ms compared with 10-30ms that you might get from your cable broadband.
EDGE latency seems to be quite a lot higher than 3G's, at least on ATT's EDGE network:
The main finding of the test is that EDGE really is a relatively slow wireless network in terms of bandwidth. The 5,805 iPhone users who took the speed test were getting an average download speed of 109 kilobits per second (Kbps) on the EDGE network. EV-DO wireless networks consistantly deliver between 400 Kbps to 700 Kbps download speeds, with bursts up to 2 megabits per second (Mbps). Your broadband connection at home is likely to be in the 1 Mbps range, or about 10 times the speed of EDGE. AT&T's more advanced 3G wireless network is also capable of delivering download speeds of around 1 Mbps.
BBR's [Broadband Reports] speed test also reveals high levels of "latency" in the EDGE network. Latency is a measure, in milliseconds, of how long it takes a single small packet of data to travel from the iPhone through the network to a target location on the Web (a Yahoo server, for example) and back again. Mind you, that's before the network actually starts sending data down.
Anyway, the speed test shows that even for the smallest data request, iPhone users can expect 500 milliseconds of latency no matter how close they are to the server they're trying to access.
EDGE's high latency times and narrow bandwidth add up to painfully long page loads for iPhone users. So why did Apple and AT&T choose EDGE and not the AT&T 3G network for the iPhone? Because EDGE covers 90 percent of the country, while the 3G network covers just a few markets. Until AT&T builds out its 3G network to reach the rest of us, the iPhone will remain a 21st century device running on a 20th century network. Too bad.
Comments
So because you are not permitted to impugn solipsism's capacity to understand something, then that prohibits you from making your argument about Nokia and the iPhone?
Make any argument you want about Nokia.
Make any argument you want about the iPhone.
Do not make any argument about someone's ability to understand something. That is irrelevant and against the posting guidelines.
I suppose I could make an argument about your ability to understand what constitutes a personal attack, but that would itself be a personal attack, so I won't make that argument.
I think I agreed with solipsism's point. At least I said I did, so this would imply that I do understand what he is trying to say. I also made note of his point about the forum moderator. I understood this as well. Considering I just made an argument about me understanding myself, did I make a personal attack on me?
This was a joke. I catch your drift.
To sum up solipsism was correct and I agree with him.
What was I thinking. Yes of course Nokia will be dominated by a company with only one crippled product. Tomorrow flags in Helsinki will be flown at half mast in honor of Apple driving them out of business with an iPod that can make calls. Huge layoffs globally are expected. Steve Jobs has decreed from on high via if will personally give each layed off employee one million dollars from petty cash. Steve Jobs is looking to move into the roll me master of the universe on a full time basis. More to come.
Well judging by the way it's developing a half-baked touchscreen device in a blind panic I'd say that Nokia is at least shitting itself at the moment. Longer term, if Apple doesn't stumble, it's definitely got a problem with Apple skimming off the cream of the market, and leaving it to sell low margin basic phones to the third world. The fact is that Apple have a very good brand and high product customer satisfaction. Nokia, on the other hand are losing it. Apple will come up to par with Nokia in hardware at some point but it can't compete on software. I can definitely see the day when Nokia is number 2 to Apple in phone revenues if not unit sales. I guess one could have scoffed at Apple beating Sony in portable music players too, but we all know how that turned out.
Well judging by the way it's developing a half-baked touchscreen device in a blind panic I'd say that Nokia is at least shitting itself at the moment. Longer term, if Apple doesn't stumble, it's definitely got a problem with Apple skimming off the cream of the market, and leaving it to sell low margin basic phones to the third world. The fact is that Apple have a very good brand and high product customer satisfaction. Nokia, on the other hand are losing it. Apple will come up to par with Nokia in hardware at some point but it can't compete on software. I can definitely see the day when Nokia is number 2 to Apple in phone revenues if not unit sales. I guess one could have scoffed at Apple beating Sony in portable music players too, but we all know how that turned out.
Uhhhh.... Here we go again. Nokia's devices, the IT are positioned for the particular market that they are aimed. They did not develop an iPod then stick a phone on it and call it revolutionary. Nokia developed a Linux tablet that is clearly aimed at a select market.
As far as the third world is concerned, the US seems to fit that bill in regards to Nokia. In the Mid East, Europe, Asia, and parts of South America, Nokia high-end phones are selling and selling quite well. Could you provide a reference as to what you consider a low-end phone. To have a much better idea of the Nokia portfolio, I would suggest you visit: www.nokia.co.uk. Here you will find a plethora of high-end phones that have better specs, and features that the iPhone is sorely lacking. Nokia actually has a smartphone line that performs smartphone functions.
Hi kickaha,
Your post was equally as well stated. The thing is, I never said the iPhone was crap. It is far from it. It is however not the revolutionary device (my opinion) that many here (some of them blind followers) think. It is an evolutionary device.
You are mostly comparing surface elements. The hardware and the missing functionality that other phones currently have.
What truly is revolutionary about the iPhone is the software. The OS and the API's have not even been used to their fullest potential.
Well, uhhhh.... whatever. I am enjoying my 7.2 mb/sec on my Nokia so I really do not care much what my iPhone is doing. I have been enjoying 3G speeds, video calls, IPTV and such for a while now. So once again, EDGE, smedge. I could not care less.
Right, you can't actually successfully argue your point, so you're going to convince us all about how right you are by telling us that you own a Nokia product. Congratulations on your purchase. I can see that not only does it allow you to surf the net at an amazing 7.2Mbps, but it also lets you be smug and condescending. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to assist the user with respect to intelligence or wisdom. Maybe if you went out and spent more money on some consumer electronics you'd eventually get that? And you'd be more attractive to opposite sex too. Be sure to tell us how you go.
Anyway, they all said the test was aimed at US phones, with US networks were as Asian, European, and Mid Eastern 3G networks were more or less the same. Much of this was way over my head, but I understood some of it. In the end, they said that if a Nokia with a 1050 mAh 3.7v battery can run a phone all day with 3G, the iPhone should be able to last all day as well. They felt the lack of 3G was marketing hype because AT&T didn't have the network at the time and Apple wanted the phone out there..
You cannot just compare two phones this way based on 3G alone. Each phone budgets its energy differently. Nokia phones have smaller screens, slower processors, and far less internal memory. These differences significantly alter the allocation of power between Nokia phones and the iPhone.
Right, you can't actually successfully argue your point, so you're going to convince us all about how right you are by telling us that you own a Nokia product. Congratulations on your purchase.
Sapporbaby has claimed for awhile to own two Nokia phones, an iPhone, and an iPod Touch.
Uhhhh.... Here we go again. Nokia's devices, the IT are positioned for the particular market that they are aimed. They did not develop an iPod then stick a phone on it and call it revolutionary. Nokia developed a Linux tablet that is clearly aimed at a select market.
As far as the third world is concerned, the US seems to fit that bill in regards to Nokia. In the Mid East, Europe, Asia, and parts of South America, Nokia high-end phones are selling and selling quite well. Could you provide a reference as to what you consider a low-end phone. To have a much better idea of the Nokia portfolio, I would suggest you visit: www.nokia.co.uk. Here you will find a plethora of high-end phones that have better specs, and features that the iPhone is sorely lacking. Nokia actually has a smartphone line that performs smartphone functions.
You seem to be so smitten with Nokia that you don't actually bother to read posts or think through your replies. Yes Nokia makes "smart phone" products. They don't sell very many compared to their low end phones and each quarter they sell less. We don't need to define the low and high end, the evidence is in the fact that Nokia's average selling price goes down each quarter. And I've owned many Nokia phones and am very familiar with their product line.
But my point is that Nokia cannot complete with Apple on software and customer satisfaction, and so will eventually cede the high end.
You are mostly comparing surface elements. The hardware and the missing functionality that other phones currently have.
What truly is revolutionary about the iPhone is the software. The OS and the API's have not even been used to their fullest potential.
What good is the OS if the rest of the phone is not up to it. As I disclaimed, these are my opinions that I developed after years of using smartphones. In comparison, the iPhone falls way short. Now if you have experience with other phones by all means bring it forth. For many, the iPhone is their first entry into the "smartphone" arena, but for others, the iPhone is just a natural progression.
Right, you can't actually successfully argue your point, so you're going to convince us all about how right you are by telling us that you own a Nokia product. Congratulations on your purchase. I can see that not only does it allow you to surf the net at an amazing 7.2Mbps, but it also lets you be smug and condescending. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to assist the user with respect to intelligence or wisdom. Maybe if you went out and spent more money on some consumer electronics you'd eventually get that? And you'd be more attractive to opposite sex too. Be sure to tell us how you go.
***Sigh***
Before continuing, maybe it would be a good idea to start from the beginning of this thread as many of your statements have been addressed by me and a few others.
As to convincing you. I thought I made it clear that I could not care what you believe or do not believe. I just don't. I did not know a phone was designed to assist with intelligence (can be gained with reading and experiencing new things), wisdom (starts with seeing the world from more than one prospective).
Sapporbaby has claimed for awhile to own two Nokia phones, an iPhone, and an iPod Touch.
??????????????????? Not sure what the significance of this is but okay.
BTW, everyone here claims something. I have not seen anyone post a receipt of their devices here online, so it could be assumed that everyone here is: "claiming".
What good is the OS if the rest of the phone is not up to it. As I disclaimed, these are my opinions that I developed after years of using smartphones. In comparison, the iPhone falls way short. Now if you have experience with other phones by all means bring it forth. For many, the iPhone is their first entry into the "smartphone" arena, but for others, the iPhone is just a natural progression.
Again you are looking at the surface. The underlying code structure is more important. The iPhone is using the same foundation and API's as the desktop OS. This is something no one else has done. This will allow the iPhone to run applications that in ways that other phones will not be able to.
Perhaps you just don't fully grasp what that means and you will have to wait and see what will come from it.
Again you are looking at the surface. The underlying code structure is more important. The iPhone is using the same foundation and API's as the desktop OS. This is something no one else has done. This will allow the iPhone to run applications that in ways that other phones will not be able to.
Perhaps you just don't fully grasp what that means and you will have to wait and see what will come from it.
Perhaps I do. Perhaps others have thought of this, but it did not seem applicable for their applications. Maybe SE and Nokia, and some of the other manufacturers do not see this as being important for their business. At the moment, many still don't. For Apple this is the right thing to do. Fine. Just because Apple thinks it is good, does not mean it the best thing in the world. Nokia and SE will still continue to do well with reincarnated versions of Symbian and beyond. This seems to be lost on anyone other than the most diehard Apple fans.
Personally, my money goes with what works. If it is Apple, Steve can buy a new mock-turtle neck on my dime. If Nokia fits the bill, then they get my money as well. I do not fall for the old Jedi Mind Trick.
the speed difference is going to be small because the phones processor and memory also plays a role in displaying that page to you. the real noticeable difference with edge/3g will be when you tether your phone to your computer... which you can't do
This is not true. The CPU on the iPhone is more than capable of handling the extra speed. We're not talking 100Mbps here - just maybe 1 Mbps or so, depending on network conditions.
One of the reasons that web site loads are not as fast on 3G as a straight download test would imply is that 3G latency is not significantly improved compared to 2.5G. A web page load of cnn.com will establish half a dozen TCP connections and send out maybe a hundred or more individual HTTP GET requests. Loading a web page quickly, therefore, requires good bandwidth *and* low latency. 3G gives the former, but still lacks in latency. A good latency with 3G is maybe 60-80ms compared with 10-30ms that you might get from your cable broadband.
Perhaps I do. Perhaps others have thought of this, but it did not seem applicable for their applications. Maybe SE and Nokia, and some of the other manufacturers do not see this as being important for their business. At the moment, many still don't. For Apple this is the right thing to do. Fine. Just because Apple thinks it is good, does not mean it the best thing in the world. Nokia and SE will still continue to do well with reincarnated versions of Symbian and beyond. This seems to be lost on anyone other than the most diehard Apple fans.
Those are a lot of maybe's. You fail to recognize what Apple has done is not easy. That is why no one else has done it.
MS cannot port XP or Vista for mobile devices. Symbian in its many forms and Blackberry were designed for mobile devices by their nature were easier to create than a desktop OS. Linux mobile in its many forms is not necessarily directly associated with desktop Linux. No one else has directly ported a desktop OS and its API's to an embedded mobile device.
Now your argument is that Apple may have a superior OS and development platform. In a highly competitive market others may have thought about it and decided they did not want to go the superior route. You do realize the OS and software platform are what directly control the hardware, functionality, and user interface. Its a very important part of the phone.
It does not really work to continue to reinvent old code. When faced with competition from newer more advanced code. Apple learned this in the 90's deciding to abandon OS 9 and its 18 year old API's. Started all over again with OS X. MS is also learning this lesson but is taking much longer to do anything about it.
Personally, my money goes with what works. If it is Apple, Steve can buy a new mock-turtle neck on my dime. If Nokia fits the bill, then they get my money as well. I do not fall for the old Jedi Mind Trick.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. All of the mobile platforms "work". What works for you is up to you.
??????????????????? Not sure what the significance of this is but okay.
You say you own an iPhone, admit you rarely use it. Many of your comments sound as if you've never touched one.
BTW, everyone here claims something. I have not seen anyone post a receipt of their devices here online, so it could be assumed that everyone here is: "claiming".
Yes anyone can claim anything but there is a limit on what sounds believable. Most of the time people sound believable, sometimes they don't.
You say you own an iPhone, admit you rarely use it. Many of your comments sound as if you've never touched one.
And your point is? I can use it as little or as much as I like. I paid for it. I do not use it as much simply because it is a crippled device (my opinion). I use the iPod functions mostly. Would you like me to chart my usage and report back to you?
Yes anyone can claim anything but there is a limit on what sounds believable. Most of the time people sound believable, sometimes they don't.
Really? Some of the things people say here sound very myopic and provincial, but then again, who cares? I surly don't. I only have to worry about a few people in my chain of command. I come to AI simply for entertainment and nothing else. There are some people here I respect greatly, even if I disagree with them. I do not waste my time riding the middle line so people will like or believe me one way or another.
And your point is? I can use it as little or as much as I like. I paid for it. I do not use it as much simply because it is a crippled device (my opinion). I use the iPod functions mostly. Would you like me to chart my usage and report back to you?
Your comments about the iPhone have been negative to an extreme. You basically say nothing good about it at all. When pointing out its marketshare accomplishments. Its glowing reviews and high customer satisfaction numbers. You find some way to dismiss it all. There are many people on AI who say they will not buy one until it as some type of missing feature they feel they must have. But generally they all admit that the phone currently does what it is designed to do exceedingly well.
Myself and other regular iPhone users point out parts of its functionality that you seem to not have experience with. Which means you really have not given it a fair and exhaustive chance.
I don't see the wisdom of using the iPhone as an iPod when for the price of it could buy two or three iPods.
Again you are looking at the surface. The underlying code structure is more important. The iPhone is using the same foundation and API's as the desktop OS. This is something no one else has done. This will allow the iPhone to run applications that in ways that other phones will not be able to.
Perhaps you just don't fully grasp what that means and you will have to wait and see what will come from it.
Whoa... didn't Sapporo just get yelled at by the mods a page back for saying much the same thing Teno is above?
Apple and others have been Nokia killers for as long as there were phones. At one time Ericsson was one paycheck away from buying Nokia, and look where things are now. If you are deluded enough to think that Nokia will simply sit by and not make a fight of the game proves that you lack the understanding involved to see products on a global scale.
NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS. Last warning.
People on both sides of the debate need to chill.
.
One of the reasons that web site loads are not as fast on 3G as a straight download test would imply is that 3G latency is not significantly improved compared to 2.5G. A web page load of cnn.com will establish half a dozen TCP connections and send out maybe a hundred or more individual HTTP GET requests. Loading a web page quickly, therefore, requires good bandwidth *and* low latency. 3G gives the former, but still lacks in latency. A good latency with 3G is maybe 60-80ms compared with 10-30ms that you might get from your cable broadband.
EDGE latency seems to be quite a lot higher than 3G's, at least on ATT's EDGE network:
The main finding of the test is that EDGE really is a relatively slow wireless network in terms of bandwidth. The 5,805 iPhone users who took the speed test were getting an average download speed of 109 kilobits per second (Kbps) on the EDGE network. EV-DO wireless networks consistantly deliver between 400 Kbps to 700 Kbps download speeds, with bursts up to 2 megabits per second (Mbps). Your broadband connection at home is likely to be in the 1 Mbps range, or about 10 times the speed of EDGE. AT&T's more advanced 3G wireless network is also capable of delivering download speeds of around 1 Mbps.
BBR's [Broadband Reports] speed test also reveals high levels of "latency" in the EDGE network. Latency is a measure, in milliseconds, of how long it takes a single small packet of data to travel from the iPhone through the network to a target location on the Web (a Yahoo server, for example) and back again. Mind you, that's before the network actually starts sending data down.
Anyway, the speed test shows that even for the smallest data request, iPhone users can expect 500 milliseconds of latency no matter how close they are to the server they're trying to access.
EDGE's high latency times and narrow bandwidth add up to painfully long page loads for iPhone users. So why did Apple and AT&T choose EDGE and not the AT&T 3G network for the iPhone? Because EDGE covers 90 percent of the country, while the 3G network covers just a few markets. Until AT&T builds out its 3G network to reach the rest of us, the iPhone will remain a 21st century device running on a 20th century network. Too bad.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/004847.html
(Note: ATT's 3G coverage is improving. And HSDPA devices also do EDGE.)
.