If you dig into it all, you absolutely realize this because getting MMS and SMS messages to your phone is no different than email.
Crucial differences between SMS/MMS and email. There is virtually no limit as to what can be sent by email. You can send emails to hundreds of millions more devices than only mobile phones. Email is free.
Quote:
Also streaming video(tv services), music, and GPS. Sorry that Apple doesn't endorse this or wants it done through iTunes but everyone else does it through their carrier just fine.
Apple does nothing to block video/audio streaming to the iPhone. Developers have full access to the QuickTime media framework, Apple supports HTML 5 audio/video media features, there are many ways to stream video and audio outside of iTunes.
Most carriers limit audio/video to their own services which you have to pay for and don't allow streaming directly from the internet, which you can do on the iPhone.
Quote:
I'm going to politely suggest that perhaps you are becoming trapped by your demographics. Most kids I know would rather text each other across the room than talk. I cannot emphasize enough how different this is with the the kids especially. Have someone under 18 show you all the crap on their phone.
"The large, dense metropolises." I recall that LA, SF and NYC AT&T customers were having some issues last summer when the iPhone launched. This new iPhone's new HW and OS, as well as the new APIs seem to now offer most of the things people have been wanting since day one
Crucial differences between SMS/MMS and email. There is virtually no limit as to what can be sent by email. You can send emails to hundreds of millions more devices than only mobile phones. Email is free.
You may not bump against them but many providers do have email size limits. The one I run against most is ten megs. If I enter an email address in my contacts my SMS/MMS messages will travel to them as emails and the reverse is true as well. The issue is more clouded than you make it seem.
Quote:
Apple does nothing to block video/audio streaming to the iPhone. Developers have full access to the QuickTime media framework, Apple supports HTML 5 audio/video media features, there are many ways to stream video and audio outside of iTunes.
Most carriers limit audio/video to their own services which you have to pay for and don't allow streaming directly from the internet, which you can do on the iPhone.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to limiting streaming. Can you give an example because I've run all sorts of video over my Dare. I'm asking you to support this claim.
Quote:
Mel has a teenage daughter.
And that means he understand how other teens use their phones how again? He said texting surprised him. If he probes a bit more he might be much more surprised.
You may not bump against them but many providers do have email size limits. The one I run against most is ten megs. If I enter an email address in my contacts my SMS/MMS messages will travel to them as emails and the reverse is true as well. The issue is more clouded than you make it seem.
I don't find it clouded at all, I use email everyday and rarely use MMS. I cannot send a large pictures, HTML graphics, or PowerPoint presentations over MMS.
Quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to limiting streaming. Can you give an example because I've run all sorts of video over my Dare. I'm asking you to support this claim.
The iPhone has multimedia apps that are front ends to media services. AOL Radio, Joost, Pandora, TV.com. Most mobile carriers do not allow such apps on their phones.
"The large, dense metropolises." I recall that LA, SF and NYC AT&T customers were having some issues last summer when the iPhone launched. This new iPhone's new HW and OS, as well as the new APIs seem to now offer most of the things people have been wanting since day one
If they were ready would they be updating their network as much as they are?
My point is always mindless speculation about when they will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
With the next iPhone's reported use of HSUPA and even faster HSDPA, as well as potential switchers who have been waiting for copy/paste, MMS, video, etc. I think AT&T can expect to see the biggest wave of new users to 3G phones this summer.
Disgusting copy/paste has nothing to do in particular with ATT. Yet, everything else promised is indeed the huge challenge and a work to do on ATT's side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This may not as big an issue to networks that have a higher percentage of 3G smartphones but I think AT&T will be hurting once again this summer. I fear for the large, dense metropolises.
Firstly it's strange. They all should have been rock solid with 3G now. All phones are now 3G. Apparently, phone guys aren't likely to be there. Were I Apple, I would do all my best to ensure the ATT 3G ramp up would be as smooth as possible.
10 FOLD INCREASE real or just marketing mojo to axe verizon, , now that's substantial, does verizon making comments about all their smartphones upgrade cycle need a substantial increase in network or was ATT so behind.
maybe its just marketing, but this suggests apple and att will be pushing video everything, tv, streaming, mms, etc. its got to be new and enhanced iphone
my hope is a front facing camera, access to hulu etc
oh yea...voice dialing doens't need a network upgrade so GIVE US VOICE DIALING
as per above, ATT must be pushing Teens getting iphone to sell text, mms packages, etc building this 10 fold increase must come with revenue enhancements, hmmm more packages for those teens and twenty somethings
I don't find it clouded at all, I use email everyday and rarely use MMS. I cannot send a large pictures, HTML graphics, or PowerPoint presentations over MMS.
Again, half a meg, I send it via MMS. All the other things you mention, I send via email. More often than not, I bump up against email limits because the pictures I send from my cameras easily go over ten megs of data and thus I cannot send them either.(By this I mean most people cannot receive them due to limits set by providers)
Everyone has limits to work around on a carrier basis on one end or the other and you break them up and deal with them appropriately. You are also, again, revealing an iPhone specific way of dealing with things. One of the reasons I know about the email limit is because I really enjoy putting video on my phone. People will ask me to send them the videos and I can't. I can transfer it via bluetooth though or go card to computer of if it is under 100 megs or so, transfer it to my phones internal memory, and then transfer it to their card.
You make it sound like the iPhone is the only thing out there that doesn't have anything to deal with in considering how to move data. That is just a lie.
Quote:
The iPhone has multimedia apps that are front ends to media services. AOL Radio, Joost, Pandora, TV.com. Most mobile carriers do not allow such apps on their phones.
All the iPhone does is allow someone to make an "app" that packages up their web content into something a little slicker and easier to access. I wondered what you were talking about because I stream links all the time through my phone's web browser. I just save the bookmarks and go to the page. People have reversed this exact argument when discussing the Pre. They'll note that Pre apps are just like tabbed webpages.
My phone is a feature phone but I've never encountered any network limits. The limits are with the browser, not the content. (aka the iPhone flash issue) I don't have the providers themselves working around this by repackaging the content for my phone, but Verizon does a decent chunk of that considering it is a generic feature phone and they don't prevent the content. I'm certain that any phone that supports flash could go to those sites and use the content. My phone has support for the mobile version of YouTube as an example and I stream anything I want from there with no limits.
So in short, I don't know what you are talking about. I get as much data as I want or need.
Again, half a meg, I send it via MMS. All the other things you mention, I send via email. More often than not, I bump up against email limits because the pictures I send from my cameras easily go over ten megs of data and thus I cannot send them either.(By this I mean most people cannot receive them due to limits set by providers)
I don't see the logic in sending things MMS, why pay an unnecessary extra charge to send messages when you can send them for free. Why would you "need" to send people RAW image files?
Quote:
You make it sound like the iPhone is the only thing out there that doesn't have anything to deal with in considering how to move data. That is just a lie.
I haven't said anything about how the iPhone transfers data, I've only spoken about email vs MMS.
V Cast is exactly what I am talking about. Its a proprietary service from Verizon. V Cast isn't a 3rd party media service like Pandora or Joost.
Quote:
All the iPhone does is allow someone to make an "app" that packages up their web content into something a little slicker and easier to access. I wondered what you were talking about because I stream links all the time through my phone's web browser. I just save the bookmarks and go to the page. People have reversed this exact argument when discussing the Pre. They'll note that Pre apps are just like tabbed webpages.
My point is that the iPhone can receive media in all of these ways. This was in response to your assertion that Apple would only allow media to be streamed through iTunes, which is not true.
Quote:
My phone is a feature phone but I've never encountered any network limits. The limits are with the browser, not the content. (aka the iPhone flash issue) I don't have the providers themselves working around this by repackaging the content for my phone, but Verizon does a decent chunk of that considering it is a generic feature phone and they don't prevent the content. I'm certain that any phone that supports flash could go to those sites and use the content. My phone has support for the mobile version of YouTube as an example and I stream anything I want from there with no limits.
The limits I'm talking about is the ability to download a 3rd party media service that goes around the carriers ability to charge for its own proprietary service.
Flash has nothing to do with the content, Flash is a deliver technology. What content providers have to do is re-ecode their content into a format and size that can be played on the iPhone. H.264 is a far more efficient codec than FLV.
Quote:
So in short, I don't know what you are talking about. I get as much data as I want or need.
I never questioned the amount of data you receive.
I don't see the logic in sending things MMS, why pay an unnecessary extra charge to send messages when you can send them for free. Why would you "need" to send people RAW image files?
What are you talking about? On most carriers MMS is included with the data plan. It is only in bizarro AT&T/iPhone world where you end up paying for both as add-ons. I can choose to pay for messaging minus data or data which includes messaging. There is no weird combo you mention where you get data, but no messaging for the rest of us. For us it isn't an "or" choice.
Quote:
I haven't said anything about how the iPhone transfers data, I've only spoken about email vs MMS.
So we get that MMS isn't useful for you but Apple felt compelled to add it and clearly millions of people get use out of it. It generates plenty of network data.
Quote:
V Cast is exactly what I am talking about. Its a proprietary service from Verizon. V Cast isn't a 3rd party media service like Pandora or Joost.
Most regular cell phones and even most features phones do not have browser advanced enough to allow use of these services and even the iPhone cannot use them through a browser without flash. The claim (hung out there as you seem to do) was that Verizon keeps things off their network so they really don't have much data to move. The point is not only do they not keep it off, they provide a gateway to get the media out there. Smartphones that support flash are in no form or fashion prevented from accessing the services and sites you mentioned. The "apps" or wrappers you talk about Apple "allowing" are nothing more than wrappers to get around the limitations of the iPhone with regard to flash. It is wrong and unless you provide a source to prove it right, do not conflate the two again.
Quote:
My point is that the iPhone can receive media in all of these ways. This was in response to your assertion that Apple would only allow media to be streamed through iTunes, which is not true.
It is true to a degree in that they must "bless" the apps to be downloaded through their app store. Without that the media cannot be streamed or loaded onto the phone. Everyone else can just move media onto their cards like a flash drive. Do you deny this is true?
Finally do you admit that any phone with a browser capable of using flash or with a site designed to wrap the media in an understandble form is not denied from using that service by their carrier?
Because this is what you claimed earlier....
Quote:
Most carriers limit audio/video to their own services which you have to pay for and don't allow streaming directly from the internet, which you can do on the iPhone.
They absolutely allow streaming directly from the internet. This is what I responded to because it is a lie. The phones need a mobile site. I use mobile YouTube and stream as much as I want. Verizon does not limit their phones to VCast to limit data use. They offer VCAST as an enticement to purchase data for phones that otherwise might not find a need for it since they are not smart phones. You cannot purchase VCast apart from the data plan. You can however purchase data without VCast and stream as much as you want from where ever you want.
Quote:
The limits I'm talking about is the ability to download a 3rd party media service that goes around the carriers ability to charge for its own proprietary service.
The data plan isn't the limitation here. Much like with the iPhone the limitations are with the technology on the phones. You don't seem to realize the reason those 3rd parties are doing that is to provide a means of the iPhone to access their content since that content is accessed via flash and the iPhone doesn't support that. You are essentually claiming a problem as a feature. Other phones that don't have that problem don't have that "feature" either.
Quote:
Flash has nothing to do with the content, Flash is a deliver technology. What content providers have to do is re-ecode their content into a format and size that can be played on the iPhone. H.264 is a far more efficient codec than FLV.
If by efficient you mean the iPhone can handle it then you are right. However this is all VCast and other services are doing for a plethora of other phones. I can go through VCAST and get shows from CBS, NBC, and ABC. They could offer their own third party apps but since Verizon provides the services, they just line up and take advantage of it.
Quote:
I never questioned the amount of data you receive.
You do if you claim the only way I can get content is if the carrier blesses it. That isn't true.
I'll believe it when I see it. Just about every other 3g cellphones works great inside buildings. Yes cells with AT&T 3g. iPhone rarely works inside buildings.
This certainly seems to be true in my experience. In fact, iPhone users in my plant share my Sprint EVDO connection because their AT&T 3G network is never available.
Let's get a few things straight. EVERYTHING on a cell network is digital data. Voice, SMS, MMS, web, email, it is all data sent via radio frequencies.
Voice is not the same as data services. Get that straight.
Quote:
Second, again the iPhone limited perspective really distorts your understanding. The size limit for a MMS that I send on my phone is half a meg. It sends it in a couple seconds at most. I'm getting older and do not use it as much as the kids so I only do 50-60 of these per month. But the kids are nuts not just with texting but specifically with video and picture messaging. They do loads of it, thousands of texts and hundreds of pictures per month. Email to them IS text messaging. They send jokes, forward each other funny pictures, all the crap email used to do they do with texting. We are even coming up with new words (SEXTING for example) to explain what they do with it.
If you somehow think that SMS at a few hundred bytes equals a half million bytes, then your arithmetic is off.
You also don't understand what is being said here. When these new services for the iPhone arrive, there will be an explosion of traffic.
It's pretty simple. You're talking around the issue. You're not speaking to it.
Quote:
If you dig into it all, you absolutely realize this because getting MMS and SMS messages to your phone is no different than email. I can email my phone from my computer and likewise do the reverse. SMS/MMS messages go to [email protected]. I messaged a large picture from my phone today to my Facebook page today with no problem. The kids understand this even if you don't. The send loads of stuff over those networks and I don't just mean 160 character messages. I mean ringtones, pictures, videos of them skatingboard, their asscheeks, you name it.
I think I know how it works.
All the crying we've seen here for MMS shows that you don't know how things are being done, and who is using what, and how they would prefer to do it.
If Apple had been correct that people would just do all of these things using e-mail, then they wouldn't have bothered to give in on MMS. Obviously, not that many have been doing it through e-mail.
Also s
Quote:
treaming video(tv services), music, and GPS. Sorry that Apple doesn't endorse this or wants it done through iTunes but everyone else does it through their carrier just fine.
Except that not nearly as much of it is going on as you think there is, otherwise Apple's products wouldn't be so far ahead in the use of data services.
Quote:
The most common complaint about AT&T is simple inability to get service aka place calls, use network, etc. Very seldom is the complaint overloaded network (circuits full) in fact I don't think I've ever read that complaint about any provider recently.
When a network is overloaded with use, things are a problem. I won't pretend to say that services couldn't get better, that's true of all the services. But AT&T has the heaviest load.
Quote:
I have read many complaints about VOICE QUALITY and that bangs again, against that limited view you want to enforce where different forms of data are treated differently. Data is data. Pipes are pipes. I've read loads of complaints about the codecs AT&T uses that reduce voice quality and make calls sound bad. You speak to the issue of network throughput. I've not read anywhere where peope on ANY network are getting great reception but terrible throughput no matter the provider.
I've read the same complaints about Verizon's service, so? And really, those who complain actually know about what codecs they use. BS!
My throughput is as good as any others that I've seen.
Quote:
So I'll ignore the car analogy which is about throughput because it doesn't address the main issue which is most people complaining they cant even get on the freeway due to lack of on ramp. (no signal)
That's ridiculous! I'm getting tired of hearing that. I've been in more than a few places the past few months, and service is no worse than anyone else's, on average. Sometimes it's worse, but sometimes it's better. I'd love to know who does most of the complaining. Which phones they have, for example. It seems that iPhones users expect more, and complain more.
Quote:
Finally the last issue you ignore is that very few phones today have wi-fi built in today. It is an iPhone advantage but also allows the iPhone/iPod to register browser share without ever touching the AT&T network. You could be checking your email, browsing the web, doing all those things and not even ping the AT&T cell network if you are near any wifi hotspot. There is no way nor any source I have seen that attempts to separate what people use the iPhone to do from the means of access to do it. Your link again shows smartphone data use but not whether that use was done via the AT&T network or from the home wifi network. It completely leaves out features phones like mine that send large half meg pictures/ringtones/videos/etc. perhaps dozens of times per day.
I'm not ignoring it. But most iPhone WiFi use is also on AT&T's network. Same pipes as you are straining to point out.
Again, data is data, the network is the network.
If it was sent out over the home network, there's a very good chance it doesn't register as an iPhone at all.
[quote]
According the Consumer Reports AT&T was last for service for NYC.
I subscribe. But I've got to say that I don't trust those reports that much. Shortly after 9/11 when we first got our phones, and I got a Samsung i300 Palmphone, with internet, we were on Sprint, which had always received bad ratings. But, we rarely had a problem. No more than my friends on Verizon, who hated their customer service (it gets the worst rating for that around the country).
Quote:
Southern California isn't exactly suffering from depopulation. A good medium size city here is larger than the largest cities in other states. Inland Empire has about 17 million people in it. I don't think I'm suffering from little traffic. I'm not lucky. My friends have converted from other networks because Verizon handles their business here. I say this as someone who owns three Macs in my home, two iPods and would buy two iPhones tomorrow if they were on the right network.
Most of those "cities" aren't real cities as is NYC. They are spread out over a very large area. If you want to compare, it would be like what is called the Greater New York Metropolitan Area, which has about the same number of people, possibly much more, as it's not exactly defined. NYC has a high population density, and a vastly greater number of very tall buildings. NYC requires a much larger number of cell towers because of this. In my last place of business, Sprint was wonderful, while we couldn't get a signal from verizon anywhere in the building. The Verizon guy who installed our phone network said that was because Verizon had no tower nearby, but Sprint did.
I see iPhones and iTouchs everywhere I go in NYC, far more per capita than anywhere else.
To give an example. Two weeks ago we went to the last parent-teacher conference we'll be going to, as my daughter is graduating from HS. During our subway trip in to Manhattan from Forest Hills in Queens, I saw at least 6 iP/iT. That just in the staion and car we were in. I saw several more when we were in the street, and coming home, another 6 or more.
This is a very high number, but it's typical. I doubt the iP/iT density is nearly as high anywhere else from what I've seen.
Quote:
My friend even went a tried to convert. He bought the iPhone, converted his entire family to AT&T brought it home and called me from his living room. He realized the problem when I told him I couldn't hear him in the car with his window down. He was in his living room. He tried it for two more days and it had to go back.
Another friend had started with AT&T, moved to Cingular, watched AT&T buy them and the whole time had spotty cell service. He kept his landline because of this. He switched to Verizon and now has no landline because he gets all his calls.
We seem to have different friends and experiences.
As I said, I had problems with the iPhone 3G when I got it. I didn't deny that. I reported my problems here over time.
But AT&T hasn't been sleeping. 3G service got much better several of months ago.
Quote:
As for me, as I said my expectations are insane. I have no landline at all. My phone must make and receive calls on par with a landline or I would be upset. For now, for where I live, Verizon does this. My phone is an LG Dare. It is a feature phone that I bought because of the camera. I use that camera often and send the pics all over the place.
I'm not ready to give up a landline. If there are power outages, cell towers will go down just as they did the last time, and you won't be able to recharge you cell batteries anyway. So if it lasts more than just a short time?no service. The companies say they've been upgrading their towers, but telephony experts have been saying that it won't help much.
Meanwhile, POTS service has its own power stations. Just like the last time, when my wife was able to plug the cheap Radio Shack basic phone (with lit keys) into the wall outlet to get and make calls as usual, in the next blackout, when VOIP and cell networks go down, we will still be able to phone.
[quote]
I'm going to politely suggest that perhaps you are becoming trapped by your demographics. Most kids I know would rather text each other across the room than talk. I cannot emphasize enough how different this is with the the kids especially. Have someone under 18 show you all the crap on their phone. (if they dare) Texting can be done via SMS and the iPhone already does that as well. MMS is different and much more data intensive. My phone allows me to send videos from my phone straight to YouTube for example (since it takes video at 640x480@15 fps.)
I have a daughter who is seventeen and a half. She has a lot of friends who are over a lot of the time. Believe it or not, we talk. I do work at her HS. I talk to those kids as well.
I'm not exactly out of it, certainly not more than you are, and likely less.
Like a number of people on these forums, I'm not naive about all this. I was the one who insisted we get the iPhones. My daughter at first resisted because, like many of her friends, she wanted to continue with a clamshell that was smaller. But as more of her friends were getting iPhones, she relented.
Let's take the premise of this thread along with what we know about iPhone 3.0 software. What is Apple offering guaranteed on the next version of the iPhone that might create the demand noted in this thread, MMS messaging.
Remember that I'm the one here who has been saying that MMS is much more data intensive, or have you forgotten?
Quote:
They limit them to smartphone platforms. Your own link confirms this.
Um, I SAID that.
That was the best I could do quickly. since that story came out, it was linked to, and quoted so much, it knocked out the other stories about the overall data service use that have been around. Google moves links up that they find to be more popular, so it becomes harder to find other articles after a while.
What are you talking about? On most carriers MMS is included with the data plan. It is only in bizarro AT&T/iPhone world where you end up paying for both as add-ons. I can choose to pay for messaging minus data or data which includes messaging. There is no weird combo you mention where you get data, but no messaging for the rest of us. For us it isn't an "or" choice.
This is the case if you get an unlimited data/messaging plan. AT&T has similar unlimited plans.
Quote:
So we get that MMS isn't useful for you but Apple felt compelled to add it and clearly millions of people get use out of it. It generates plenty of network data.
I'm simply saying its limited and costs money. While email is more flexible, has many more options, and is free.
Quote:
Most regular cell phones and even most features phones do not have browser advanced enough to allow use of these services and even the iPhone cannot use them through a browser without flash. The claim (hung out there as you seem to do) was that Verizon keeps things off their network so they really don't have much data to move. The point is not only do they not keep it off, they provide a gateway to get the media out there. Smartphones that support flash are in no form or fashion prevented from accessing the services and sites you mentioned. The "apps" or wrappers you talk about Apple "allowing" are nothing more than wrappers to get around the limitations of the iPhone with regard to flash. It is wrong and unless you provide a source to prove it right, do not conflate the two again.
Many media services do not require flash and as mobile devices grow many more are offering media without flash.
Verizon provides a gateway to services it has set up with content studios. Those are not general services offered on the internet.
.
Quote:
It is true to a degree in that they must "bless" the apps to be downloaded through their app store. Without that the media cannot be streamed or loaded onto the phone. Everyone else can just move media onto their cards like a flash drive. Do you deny this is true?
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying you can download media off of the internet and store it on media cards? I've never seen a phone that can do this.
Quote:
Finally do you admit that any phone with a browser capable of using flash or with a site designed to wrap the media in an understandble form is not denied from using that service by their carrier?
Because this is what you claimed earlier....
No phones that use flash cannot simply use any flash website. No one is going on Hulu with their phone and watching videos.
Phones use Flash lite. Flash lite is not the same as the flash on your computer. Flash lite is not capable of rendering all of the flash content available on the internet. On top of that a phone is only capable of playing video that limited to a certain size and bit rate. Flash video comes in all sizes and bit rate, its hit and miss whether it can even play or not.
Quote:
You can however purchase data without VCast and stream as much as you want from where ever you want.
No you can't because phones cannot play all of the video available on the web.
Quote:
The data plan isn't the limitation here. Much like with the iPhone the limitations are with the technology on the phones. You don't seem to realize the reason those 3rd parties are doing that is to provide a means of the iPhone to access their content since that content is accessed via flash and the iPhone doesn't support that. You are essentually claiming a problem as a feature. Other phones that don't have that problem don't have that "feature" either.
Its not a wrapper its an application and user interface. A user interface designed for the iPhone screen an input is much easier to use than an interface designed for a desktop computer and mouse.
Quote:
If by efficient you mean the iPhone can handle it then you are right. However this is all VCast and other services are doing for a plethora of other phones. I can go through VCAST and get shows from CBS, NBC, and ABC. They could offer their own third party apps but since Verizon provides the services, they just line up and take advantage of it.
They don't just line up. Verizon is paying for this service. You pay Verizon and Verizon pays the content providers.
Voice is not the same as data services. Get that straight.
In the end it is all digital data.
Quote:
If you somehow think that SMS at a few hundred bytes equals a half million bytes, then your arithmetic is off.
I've never claimed contrary to this so I have no idea to what you are referring.
Quote:
You also don't understand what is being said here. When these new services for the iPhone arrive, there will be an explosion of traffic.
Yes, unnamed sources have said unnamed features from anticipated phone will cause an explosion based off unnamed bits of information. I love rumors but treat them appropriately and you should too.
Quote:
It's pretty simple. You're talking around the issue. You're not speaking to it.
Actually I'm not the guy ignoring surveys and extrapolating data usage from a single characteristic on a small sample.
Quote:
I think I know how it works.
I think you don't. See how much fun this is to do? You should know better.
Quote:
All the crying we've seen here for MMS shows that you don't know how things are being done, and who is using what, and how they would prefer to do it.
If Apple had been correct that people would just do all of these things using e-mail, then they wouldn't have bothered to give in on MMS. Obviously, not that many have been doing it through e-mail.
I have no idea where you are coming from but you just stated what I have been arguing. I've been arguing that MMS already radically increases data use due to people being much more willing to send large numbers of half meg pictures all over the place thanks to their phones. The counter argument to that from Teno is that MMS sucks because people can't send a Powerpoint with it on their phone. How that relates to data utilization, your guess is as good as mine.
Quote:
Except that not nearly as much of it is going on as you think there is, otherwise Apple's products wouldn't be so far ahead in the use of data services.
Except they are not that far ahead in use of data services. They are that far ahead in share of traffic by browser on smart phones when combining both wifi and cell, and iPhone and Touch. You and others appear to be conflating this in purpose to state something that is not true. Web usage is not the same thing as sending mms's, using gps data, getting email, and across all phones versus just smart phones.
You can't really be this obtuse about this matter so what is the point in intentionally obscuring the reality of cells and data by citing smart phones and browser share? Do you think it honest to portray one as the other?
Quote:
When a network is overloaded with use, things are a problem. I won't pretend to say that services couldn't get better, that's true of all the services. But AT&T has the heaviest load.
You base this off a claim about web browsing among smart phone platforms while ignoring the reality of hundreds of millions of additional phones out there all needing and grabbing data for voice and other services.
Quote:
I've read the same complaints about Verizon's service, so? And really, those who complain actually know about what codecs they use. BS!
There are sites where they probe into it deeper. I haven't saved the links but there are review places that measure everything you can imagine related to cell phones.
Quote:
My throughput is as good as any others that I've seen.
That's nice but I'm going to trust the survey of 51,700 readers over your personal experience, especially when my own experiences match the survey as well.
Quote:
That's ridiculous! I'm getting tired of hearing that. I've been in more than a few places the past few months, and service is no worse than anyone else's, on average. Sometimes it's worse, but sometimes it's better. I'd love to know who does most of the complaining. Which phones they have, for example. It seems that iPhones users expect more, and complain more.
51,700 say otherwise and it isn't just magical wishing on a pony nor is it users of one network knocking down another. You've noted that you came through the fire as well and appear to forgive and forget. Well perhaps others don't or won't wait for someone to take a year or even six months to resolve the issues. Again, my phone is primary no matter what. Anyone who wants to take even two months to resolves issues is going to be fired from being my provider. Others clearly have different expectations. However being "tired of hearing that" doesn't change the survey results.
Quote:
I'm not ignoring it. But most iPhone WiFi use is also on AT&T's network. Same pipes as you are straining to point out.
Again, data is data, the network is the network.
Nonsense home wifi is much different than cell access.
Quote:
If it was sent out over the home network, there's a very good chance it doesn't register as an iPhone at all.
I'll be happy to listen to the explanation as to why the iPhone running Safari-mobile edition would suddenly stop identifying itself as that.
Quote:
According the Consumer Reports AT&T was last for service for NYC.
I subscribe. But I've got to say that I don't trust those reports that much. Shortly after 9/11 when we first got our phones, and I got a Samsung i300 Palmphone, with internet, we were on Sprint, which had always received bad ratings. But, we rarely had a problem. No more than my friends on Verizon, who hated their customer service (it gets the worst rating for that around the country).
Most of those "cities" aren't real cities as is NYC. They are spread out over a very large area. If you want to compare, it would be like what is called the Greater New York Metropolitan Area, which has about the same number of people, possibly much more, as it's not exactly defined. NYC has a high population density, and a vastly greater number of very tall buildings. NYC requires a much larger number of cell towers because of this. In my last place of business, Sprint was wonderful, while we couldn't get a signal from verizon anywhere in the building. The Verizon guy who installed our phone network said that was because Verizon had no tower nearby, but Sprint did.
I see iPhones and iTouchs everywhere I go in NYC, far more per capita than anywhere else.
To give an example. Two weeks ago we went to the last parent-teacher conference we'll be going to, as my daughter is graduating from HS. During our subway trip in to Manhattan from Forest Hills in Queens, I saw at least 6 iP/iT. That just in the staion and car we were in. I saw several more when we were in the street, and coming home, another 6 or more.
This is a very high number, but it's typical. I doubt the iP/iT density is nearly as high anywhere else from what I've seen.
We seem to have different friends and experiences.
Well my experiences don't lead me to ignore a survey of 51,700 and call places where 17 million people "not real cities." This is a ridiculous length to go to to ignore real data and justify an anecdotal opinion. Your argument amounts to "I'm ignoring 17 million people for what I saw coming home on the subway."
Quote:
As I said, I had problems with the iPhone 3G when I got it. I didn't deny that. I reported my problems here over time.
But AT&T hasn't been sleeping. 3G service got much better several of months ago
How about those of us that never had problems, continue to not have problems and have been happily not bitching about AT&T sucking for a period of time while gladly tethering, mmsing, browsing, etc on our phones. How about we believe that when even your anecdotal experience reflects a past level of dissatisfaction, the survey of 51,700 will probably reflect that as well.
Quote:
I'm not ready to give up a landline. If there are power outages, cell towers will go down just as they did the last time, and you won't be able to recharge you cell batteries anyway. So if it lasts more than just a short time—no service. The companies say they've been upgrading their towers, but telephony experts have been saying that it won't help much.
Generator, car battery, inverters, you name it. Some of us have batteries that last more than a day so we can consider the possibilities. When I was just in Mexico camping on a beach for a week, I charged my phone just fine in my car using an inverter. Finally here is a serious scary proposition, some of us could you know... carry EXTRA batteries for our phones, maybe even EXTENDED batteries for our phones since we can remove them.
Weird I know, but think about it. I'm pocketing the money right now in savings.
Quote:
Meanwhile, POTS service has its own power stations. Just like the last time, when my wife was able to plug the cheap Radio Shack basic phone (with lit keys) into the wall outlet to get and make calls as usual, in the next blackout, when VOIP and cell networks go down, we will still be able to phone.
I'm sure if push comes to shove they can take my 911 call from the phone I'll plug in. If not then I'll call 611 and then 911. How's that?
Quote:
I have a daughter who is seventeen and a half. She has a lot of friends who are over a lot of the time. Believe it or not, we talk. I do work at her HS. I talk to those kids as well.
I'm not exactly out of it, certainly not more than you are, and likely less.
Like a number of people on these forums, I'm not naive about all this. I was the one who insisted we get the iPhones. My daughter at first resisted because, like many of her friends, she wanted to continue with a clamshell that was smaller. But as more of her friends were getting iPhones, she relented.
So she wanted something different. You made her take the iPhone. She relented and that means you now know what the cool kids want and are doing? Interesting reasoning. I mean it could be a great thing considering what most of them are doing but clearly you made her take it versus her making you get her one. I don't call that knowing what the kids want, but telling them what they will take.
Quote:
Remember that I'm the one here who has been saying that MMS is much more data intensive, or have you forgotten?
I haven't followed all the threads in the iPhone forum. If you contend as I do, that MMS will create a need for much more data bandwidth, then we are on the same page and in agreement.
Quote:
That was the best I could do quickly. since that story came out, it was linked to, and quoted so much, it knocked out the other stories about the overall data service use that have been around. Google moves links up that they find to be more popular, so it becomes harder to find other articles after a while.
However that has nothing to do with overall data use by cell networks. It would be like quoting what model of tires is most used by sport car drivers when driving a track and extrapolating that to every car commuting in traffic. It doesn't work. It isn't even close. Smart phones using web browsers is nothing like regular phones and all the other data services as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This is the case if you get an unlimited data/messaging plan. AT&T has similar unlimited plans.
I'm simply saying its limited and costs money. While email is more flexible, has many more options, and is free.
Free with a data plan you mean unless you are going to suggest that a phone that requires a data plan doesn't really need one and that you bought portable device so you can sit in your living room and not use it when you are out and about. MMS is cheaper than the data plan and in most cases for non-smart phones you can add mms and data for less than AT&T data for the iPhone.
Quote:
Many media services do not require flash and as mobile devices grow many more are offering media without flash.
I guess by many you mean, not all the ones you linked to with regard to their web interface.
Quote:
Verizon provides a gateway to services it has set up with content studios. Those are not general services offered on the internet.
You seriously think the websites you linked are not under the same stipulations? Please don't be delusional. They offer that media because of the agreements they have and they do not offer other media because they have no agreements for it. Same thing.
Quote:
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying you can download media off of the internet and store it on media cards? I've never seen a phone that can do this.
I don't save it to my card from my phone, but I do save it off the internet and then transfer it to my phone. It doesn't need to go through iTunes to get on the phone.
Quote:
No phones that use flash cannot simply use any flash website. No one is going on Hulu with their phone and watching videos.
Please address the point. You claimed they would not be ALLOWED by their providers. Is that true or not?
Quote:
Phones use Flash lite. Flash lite is not the same as the flash on your computer. Flash lite is not capable of rendering all of the flash content available on the internet. On top of that a phone is only capable of playing video that limited to a certain size and bit rate. Flash video comes in all sizes and bit rate, its hit and miss whether it can even play or not.
Correct and whether they convert it for the iPhone and add an app that points to the network content, or whether they tell a WAP browser how to open it, etc. It streams just fine across all providers because contrary to your claim, no one is cutting them off or shutting them down.
Quote:
No you can't because phones cannot play all of the video available on the web.
The phones playing it and the provider denying it is not the same thing. Why do you continue to do this? You claim the provider won't allow it and then claim because not all the phones can access the same format, that it is the provider who has denied it. That isn't true.
Quote:
Its not a wrapper its an application and user interface. A user interface designed for the iPhone screen an input is much easier to use than an interface designed for a desktop computer and mouse.
Enjoy your opinion. Several of them I've seen, especially apps like Facebook, look no different from the browser to me.
Quote:
They don't just line up. Verizon is paying for this service. You pay Verizon and Verizon pays the content providers.
I'm going to be polite and try not to be a total asshole to someone who is clearly delusional if they think websites like Hulu, TV.com and all the others you mentioned here are not paying content providers for content in formats and on terms that they find acceptable for providing that content. It is the same thing. Hulu inserts commercials, Verizon doesn't and charges $5 a month for it.
Finally again, smartphones demand the data plan. Apple 3.0 features clearly allow microtransactions within these apps now. If you don't think you might be paying for it soon then enjoy the ride while you can. There is no free ride. It all gets paid for someway.
MMS is cheaper than the data plan and in most cases for non-smart phones you can add mms and data for less than AT&T data for the iPhone.
Of course featured phone plans are cheaper than smartphone plans, featured phones are not as capable.
Quote:
I don't save it to my card from my phone, but I do save it off the internet and then transfer it to my phone. It doesn't need to go through iTunes to get on the phone.
For most people organizing media with one application is the easiest way to do it. There is nothing wrong with iTunes.
Quote:
Please address the point. You claimed they would not be ALLOWED by their providers. Is that true or not?
My over all point that most mobile carriers do not allow 3rd party media services on to their phones. Of course they cannot block streaming media from websites, but they do not allow apps that more easily serve this purpose.
Quote:
The phones playing it and the provider denying it is not the same thing. Why do you continue to do this? You claim the provider won't allow it and then claim because not all the phones can access the same format, that it is the provider who has denied it. That isn't true.
These are two different points that you are confusing. One point is that most carriers do not allow 3rd party media service apps on their phones. The other separate point is that simply because a phone has flash lite does not mean it can stream all flash video available on the web.
Quote:
Enjoy your opinion. Several of them I've seen, especially apps like Facebook, look no different from the browser to me.
This means you don't understand the difference between a web app and a native app. The native Facebook app has several differences from the Facebook web app. The native app has a better lay out and is more polished than the web app. The native app is much faster because it only needs to download content instead of the entire page. The native app is able to use more of Facebook's functionality than the web app.
Quote:
I'm going to be polite and try not to be a total asshole to someone who is clearly delusional if they think websites like Hulu, TV.com and all the others you mentioned here are not paying content providers for content in formats and on terms that they find acceptable for providing that content. It is the same thing. Hulu inserts commercials, Verizon doesn't and charges $5 a month for it.
Its because you are misunderstanding and missing my point. VCast is a service from Verizon, Verizon does not allow you to use a 3rd party AOL Radio, or Pandora, or Hulu app. Because Verizon wants you to pay them for VCast.
The iPhone allows 3rd party media services. Neither Apple nor AT&T have any affiliation or profit from these services. They are entirely separate 3rd party services that are freely allowed to run on the phone without interference from AT&T.
Hulu is co-owned by NBC and FOX Television. Most of the content comes from their own studios. They do license content from other television studios and production companies. TV.com is owned by CBS which has primarily CBS owned content.
The point over all is that Apple and AT&T have nothing to do with these media services. They operate completely independent of Apple and AT&T. VCast and Sprint TV are owned and controlled by Verizon and Sprint.
Quote:
Finally again, smartphones demand the data plan. Apple 3.0 features clearly allow microtransactions within these apps now. If you don't think you might be paying for it soon then enjoy the ride while you can. There is no free ride. It all gets paid for someway.
That's totally up to the app developers, this has nothing to do with Apple or AT&T.
I see. You make me write long phrases, which state only proven absolutely accurate facts. That must do a lot of good to my English, thanks.
I wasn't talking about 3G penetration rate.
I said "any (including Apple) of top 10 (OK, 11) mobile phone makers, totaling together good 80++% of market share, offers nowadays at least isolated models (more oftenly several lines) of 3G-compliant handsets"... You can hardly dispute that.
Of course featured phone plans are cheaper than smartphone plans, featured phones are not as capable.
A lot of them are as capable but people like the choice of whether to have a data plan or not.
Quote:
For most people organizing media with one application is the easiest way to do it. There is nothing wrong with iTunes.
There's nothing wrong with the Finder either. What is your point?
Quote:
My over all point that most mobile carriers do not allow 3rd party media services on to their phones. Of course they cannot block streaming media from websites, but they do not allow apps that more easily serve this purpose.
Please name or cite for me the third party app that was declined for a brand of smart phone on AT&T or a different network. You are making crap up. This does not exist. It is a lie. Providers do not even control the apps for smart phones. Hell, cite it for any phone no matter the level. I've read about every single app that was declined from the Apple Store. I've never heard about the reverse even once. Cite a source and just stop repeating nonsense.
Finally, in addition to your overall point being wrong. You were called out as wrong on the reality that if it can be streamed, it is allowed to be streamed. No one is stopping anyone from doing anything.
Quote:
These are two different points that you are confusing. One point is that most carriers do not allow 3rd party media service apps on their phones. The other separate point is that simply because a phone has flash lite does not mean it can stream all flash video available on the web.
The first one is made up nonsense. The second point is something you want to fixate on due to being proven wrong about the fact that no one is blocking any streaming PERIOD.
Quote:
This means you don't understand the difference between a web app and a native app. The native Facebook app has several differences from the Facebook web app. The native app has a better lay out and is more polished than the web app. The native app is much faster because it only needs to download content instead of the entire page. The native app is able to use more of Facebook's functionality than the web app.
Let me explain something to you and try not to be an insulting ass as you have done. When someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean they don't understand. It means they do not have the same preferences as you. You declare the app more "polished." That is called "opinion." Your opinions have nothing to do with my brain power. Understand that or be prepared to have your own brain power questioned. Second, you talk about speed while keeping a phone on a shit network. Did it occur to you that those of us on non-shit networks do not suffer the slowdowns you note? Maybe we've heard of this concept called caching and our phones don't need to keep re-downloading everything.
Maybe the differences just aren't enough to warrant managing an icon and loading an app versus just using a bookmark, especially when on a phone that won't multitask well. Maybe we don't want to leave one app and load another.
Maybe there are some differences your brain is not understanding or is confused about.
Quote:
Its because you are misunderstanding and missing my point. VCast is a service from Verizon, Verizon does not allow you to use a 3rd party AOL Radio, or Pandora, or Hulu app. Because Verizon wants you to pay them for VCast.
The iPhone allows 3rd party media services. Neither Apple nor AT&T have any affiliation or profit from these services. They are entirely separate 3rd party services that are freely allowed to run on the phone without interference from AT&T.
Hulu is co-owned by NBC and FOX Television. Most of the content comes from their own studios. They do license content from other television studios and production companies. TV.com is owned by CBS which has primarily CBS owned content.
The point over all is that Apple and AT&T have nothing to do with these media services. They operate completely independent of Apple and AT&T. VCast and Sprint TV are owned and controlled by Verizon and Sprint.
Wow thanks for that clarification. Now that you tossed out who owns what it totally negates the fact that all that content is licensed and sent out for profit in one manner or another.
NOT.
Maybe with a second swing you can stop tossing up dust and actually address the point.
I'm going to be polite and try not to be a total asshole to someone who is clearly delusional if they think websites like Hulu, TV.com and all the others you mentioned here are not paying content providers for content in formats and on terms that they find acceptable for providing that content. It is the same thing. Hulu inserts commercials, Verizon doesn't and charges $5 a month for it.
Now maybe you can address the fact that people get paid for their content instead of who owns it and how that must somehow (to you at least) make it irrelevant.
SprintTV is a mobile TV service and Verizon has one totally separate from VCast as well. Totally different and still not on the point of course. You claimed VCast shouldn't "count" in a another bit of distracting dust because it has a cost and shares revenue. Please explain how Hulu, TV.com and others do not have these things. They will insert commercials onto content on their websites and third party apps. There is no free lunch.
I don't want to know who owns them. I want you to address the point. I don't want you to repeat the point and talk about your "overall point" being "mostly" still true. I want the point addressed. I don't want you to tell me I must be "confused" about the point due to your opinions about something being "faster" or "more polished." I want the point addressed.
I see. You make me write long phrases, which state only proven absolutely accurate facts. That must do a lot of good to my English, thanks.
You haven't stated any proven facts there. Only an opinion that is so vague as to be useless.
Quote:
I wasn't talking about 3G penetration rate.
I said "any (including Apple) of top 10 (OK, 11) mobile phone makers, totaling together good 80++% of market share, offers nowadays at least isolated models (more oftenly several lines) of 3G-compliant handsets"... You can hardly dispute that.
You can use any smilies you want to here, in an attempt to make yourself think that you've won something, but it doesn't change what you've said.
What you've NOW said, is very different from what you said before, in response to Sol's statement, both of which I'll include here, capitalizing the incorrect statement, which you see to want to forget you made:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This may not as big an issue to networks that have a higher percentage of 3G smartphones but I think AT&T will be hurting once again this summer. I fear for the large, dense metropolises.
ivan.rnn01'sreply:
Firstly it's strange. They all should have been rock solid with 3G now. ALL PHONES ARE NOW 3G. Apparently, phone guys aren't likely to be there. Were I Apple, I would do all my best to ensure the ATT 3G ramp up would be as smooth as possible.
It's not always too hard to pretend you didn't say something when it's just spoken. But when it's in a public forum, you can't act as though what's in print isn't there.
I quoted that line the first time, and find it hard to understand how you are denying it.
Just say "Oops! I made a mistake.", and go on from there.
(in response to TenoBell, who says, "The iPhone has multimedia apps that are front ends to media services. AOL Radio, Joost, Pandora, TV.com. Most mobile carriers do not allow such apps on their phones."
I cannot believe you're using the completely craptastic V-Cast mess as a contradiction of the point; I think you're closer to making his point than supporting your own.
Comments
If you dig into it all, you absolutely realize this because getting MMS and SMS messages to your phone is no different than email.
Crucial differences between SMS/MMS and email. There is virtually no limit as to what can be sent by email. You can send emails to hundreds of millions more devices than only mobile phones. Email is free.
Also streaming video(tv services), music, and GPS. Sorry that Apple doesn't endorse this or wants it done through iTunes but everyone else does it through their carrier just fine.
Apple does nothing to block video/audio streaming to the iPhone. Developers have full access to the QuickTime media framework, Apple supports HTML 5 audio/video media features, there are many ways to stream video and audio outside of iTunes.
Most carriers limit audio/video to their own services which you have to pay for and don't allow streaming directly from the internet, which you can do on the iPhone.
I'm going to politely suggest that perhaps you are becoming trapped by your demographics. Most kids I know would rather text each other across the room than talk. I cannot emphasize enough how different this is with the the kids especially. Have someone under 18 show you all the crap on their phone.
Mel has a teenage daughter.
Which networks are those?
"The large, dense metropolises." I recall that LA, SF and NYC AT&T customers were having some issues last summer when the iPhone launched. This new iPhone's new HW and OS, as well as the new APIs seem to now offer most of the things people have been wanting since day one
Crucial differences between SMS/MMS and email. There is virtually no limit as to what can be sent by email. You can send emails to hundreds of millions more devices than only mobile phones. Email is free.
You may not bump against them but many providers do have email size limits. The one I run against most is ten megs. If I enter an email address in my contacts my SMS/MMS messages will travel to them as emails and the reverse is true as well. The issue is more clouded than you make it seem.
Apple does nothing to block video/audio streaming to the iPhone. Developers have full access to the QuickTime media framework, Apple supports HTML 5 audio/video media features, there are many ways to stream video and audio outside of iTunes.
Most carriers limit audio/video to their own services which you have to pay for and don't allow streaming directly from the internet, which you can do on the iPhone.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to limiting streaming. Can you give an example because I've run all sorts of video over my Dare. I'm asking you to support this claim.
Mel has a teenage daughter.
And that means he understand how other teens use their phones how again? He said texting surprised him. If he probes a bit more he might be much more surprised.
You may not bump against them but many providers do have email size limits. The one I run against most is ten megs. If I enter an email address in my contacts my SMS/MMS messages will travel to them as emails and the reverse is true as well. The issue is more clouded than you make it seem.
I don't find it clouded at all, I use email everyday and rarely use MMS. I cannot send a large pictures, HTML graphics, or PowerPoint presentations over MMS.
I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to limiting streaming. Can you give an example because I've run all sorts of video over my Dare. I'm asking you to support this claim.
The iPhone has multimedia apps that are front ends to media services. AOL Radio, Joost, Pandora, TV.com. Most mobile carriers do not allow such apps on their phones.
"The large, dense metropolises." I recall that LA, SF and NYC AT&T customers were having some issues last summer when the iPhone launched. This new iPhone's new HW and OS, as well as the new APIs seem to now offer most of the things people have been wanting since day one
If they were ready would they be updating their network as much as they are?
My point is always mindless speculation about when they will.
With the next iPhone's reported use of HSUPA and even faster HSDPA, as well as potential switchers who have been waiting for copy/paste, MMS, video, etc. I think AT&T can expect to see the biggest wave of new users to 3G phones this summer.
Disgusting copy/paste has nothing to do in particular with ATT. Yet, everything else promised is indeed the huge challenge and a work to do on ATT's side.
This may not as big an issue to networks that have a higher percentage of 3G smartphones but I think AT&T will be hurting once again this summer. I fear for the large, dense metropolises.
Firstly it's strange. They all should have been rock solid with 3G now. All phones are now 3G. Apparently, phone guys aren't likely to be there. Were I Apple, I would do all my best to ensure the ATT 3G ramp up would be as smooth as possible.
10 FOLD INCREASE real or just marketing mojo to axe verizon, , now that's substantial, does verizon making comments about all their smartphones upgrade cycle need a substantial increase in network or was ATT so behind.
maybe its just marketing, but this suggests apple and att will be pushing video everything, tv, streaming, mms, etc. its got to be new and enhanced iphone
my hope is a front facing camera, access to hulu etc
oh yea...voice dialing doens't need a network upgrade so GIVE US VOICE DIALING
as per above, ATT must be pushing Teens getting iphone to sell text, mms packages, etc building this 10 fold increase must come with revenue enhancements, hmmm more packages for those teens and twenty somethings
I don't find it clouded at all, I use email everyday and rarely use MMS. I cannot send a large pictures, HTML graphics, or PowerPoint presentations over MMS.
Again, half a meg, I send it via MMS. All the other things you mention, I send via email. More often than not, I bump up against email limits because the pictures I send from my cameras easily go over ten megs of data and thus I cannot send them either.(By this I mean most people cannot receive them due to limits set by providers)
Everyone has limits to work around on a carrier basis on one end or the other and you break them up and deal with them appropriately. You are also, again, revealing an iPhone specific way of dealing with things. One of the reasons I know about the email limit is because I really enjoy putting video on my phone. People will ask me to send them the videos and I can't. I can transfer it via bluetooth though or go card to computer of if it is under 100 megs or so, transfer it to my phones internal memory, and then transfer it to their card.
You make it sound like the iPhone is the only thing out there that doesn't have anything to deal with in considering how to move data. That is just a lie.
The iPhone has multimedia apps that are front ends to media services. AOL Radio, Joost, Pandora, TV.com. Most mobile carriers do not allow such apps on their phones.
Sorry but your are misinformed. They not only allow it but advertise it as a feature.
All the iPhone does is allow someone to make an "app" that packages up their web content into something a little slicker and easier to access. I wondered what you were talking about because I stream links all the time through my phone's web browser. I just save the bookmarks and go to the page. People have reversed this exact argument when discussing the Pre. They'll note that Pre apps are just like tabbed webpages.
My phone is a feature phone but I've never encountered any network limits. The limits are with the browser, not the content. (aka the iPhone flash issue) I don't have the providers themselves working around this by repackaging the content for my phone, but Verizon does a decent chunk of that considering it is a generic feature phone and they don't prevent the content. I'm certain that any phone that supports flash could go to those sites and use the content. My phone has support for the mobile version of YouTube as an example and I stream anything I want from there with no limits.
So in short, I don't know what you are talking about. I get as much data as I want or need.
Again, half a meg, I send it via MMS. All the other things you mention, I send via email. More often than not, I bump up against email limits because the pictures I send from my cameras easily go over ten megs of data and thus I cannot send them either.(By this I mean most people cannot receive them due to limits set by providers)
I don't see the logic in sending things MMS, why pay an unnecessary extra charge to send messages when you can send them for free. Why would you "need" to send people RAW image files?
You make it sound like the iPhone is the only thing out there that doesn't have anything to deal with in considering how to move data. That is just a lie.
I haven't said anything about how the iPhone transfers data, I've only spoken about email vs MMS.
Sorry but your are misinformed. They not only allow it but advertise it as a feature.
V Cast is exactly what I am talking about. Its a proprietary service from Verizon. V Cast isn't a 3rd party media service like Pandora or Joost.
All the iPhone does is allow someone to make an "app" that packages up their web content into something a little slicker and easier to access. I wondered what you were talking about because I stream links all the time through my phone's web browser. I just save the bookmarks and go to the page. People have reversed this exact argument when discussing the Pre. They'll note that Pre apps are just like tabbed webpages.
My point is that the iPhone can receive media in all of these ways. This was in response to your assertion that Apple would only allow media to be streamed through iTunes, which is not true.
My phone is a feature phone but I've never encountered any network limits. The limits are with the browser, not the content. (aka the iPhone flash issue) I don't have the providers themselves working around this by repackaging the content for my phone, but Verizon does a decent chunk of that considering it is a generic feature phone and they don't prevent the content. I'm certain that any phone that supports flash could go to those sites and use the content. My phone has support for the mobile version of YouTube as an example and I stream anything I want from there with no limits.
The limits I'm talking about is the ability to download a 3rd party media service that goes around the carriers ability to charge for its own proprietary service.
Flash has nothing to do with the content, Flash is a deliver technology. What content providers have to do is re-ecode their content into a format and size that can be played on the iPhone. H.264 is a far more efficient codec than FLV.
So in short, I don't know what you are talking about. I get as much data as I want or need.
I never questioned the amount of data you receive.
I don't see the logic in sending things MMS, why pay an unnecessary extra charge to send messages when you can send them for free. Why would you "need" to send people RAW image files?
What are you talking about? On most carriers MMS is included with the data plan. It is only in bizarro AT&T/iPhone world where you end up paying for both as add-ons. I can choose to pay for messaging minus data or data which includes messaging. There is no weird combo you mention where you get data, but no messaging for the rest of us. For us it isn't an "or" choice.
I haven't said anything about how the iPhone transfers data, I've only spoken about email vs MMS.
So we get that MMS isn't useful for you but Apple felt compelled to add it and clearly millions of people get use out of it. It generates plenty of network data.
V Cast is exactly what I am talking about. Its a proprietary service from Verizon. V Cast isn't a 3rd party media service like Pandora or Joost.
Most regular cell phones and even most features phones do not have browser advanced enough to allow use of these services and even the iPhone cannot use them through a browser without flash. The claim (hung out there as you seem to do) was that Verizon keeps things off their network so they really don't have much data to move. The point is not only do they not keep it off, they provide a gateway to get the media out there. Smartphones that support flash are in no form or fashion prevented from accessing the services and sites you mentioned. The "apps" or wrappers you talk about Apple "allowing" are nothing more than wrappers to get around the limitations of the iPhone with regard to flash. It is wrong and unless you provide a source to prove it right, do not conflate the two again.
My point is that the iPhone can receive media in all of these ways. This was in response to your assertion that Apple would only allow media to be streamed through iTunes, which is not true.
It is true to a degree in that they must "bless" the apps to be downloaded through their app store. Without that the media cannot be streamed or loaded onto the phone. Everyone else can just move media onto their cards like a flash drive. Do you deny this is true?
Finally do you admit that any phone with a browser capable of using flash or with a site designed to wrap the media in an understandble form is not denied from using that service by their carrier?
Because this is what you claimed earlier....
Most carriers limit audio/video to their own services which you have to pay for and don't allow streaming directly from the internet, which you can do on the iPhone.
They absolutely allow streaming directly from the internet. This is what I responded to because it is a lie. The phones need a mobile site. I use mobile YouTube and stream as much as I want. Verizon does not limit their phones to VCast to limit data use. They offer VCAST as an enticement to purchase data for phones that otherwise might not find a need for it since they are not smart phones. You cannot purchase VCast apart from the data plan. You can however purchase data without VCast and stream as much as you want from where ever you want.
The limits I'm talking about is the ability to download a 3rd party media service that goes around the carriers ability to charge for its own proprietary service.
The data plan isn't the limitation here. Much like with the iPhone the limitations are with the technology on the phones. You don't seem to realize the reason those 3rd parties are doing that is to provide a means of the iPhone to access their content since that content is accessed via flash and the iPhone doesn't support that. You are essentually claiming a problem as a feature. Other phones that don't have that problem don't have that "feature" either.
Flash has nothing to do with the content, Flash is a deliver technology. What content providers have to do is re-ecode their content into a format and size that can be played on the iPhone. H.264 is a far more efficient codec than FLV.
If by efficient you mean the iPhone can handle it then you are right. However this is all VCast and other services are doing for a plethora of other phones. I can go through VCAST and get shows from CBS, NBC, and ABC. They could offer their own third party apps but since Verizon provides the services, they just line up and take advantage of it.
I never questioned the amount of data you receive.
You do if you claim the only way I can get content is if the carrier blesses it. That isn't true.
I'll believe it when I see it. Just about every other 3g cellphones works great inside buildings. Yes cells with AT&T 3g. iPhone rarely works inside buildings.
This certainly seems to be true in my experience. In fact, iPhone users in my plant share my Sprint EVDO connection because their AT&T 3G network is never available.
Let's get a few things straight. EVERYTHING on a cell network is digital data. Voice, SMS, MMS, web, email, it is all data sent via radio frequencies.
Voice is not the same as data services. Get that straight.
Second, again the iPhone limited perspective really distorts your understanding. The size limit for a MMS that I send on my phone is half a meg. It sends it in a couple seconds at most. I'm getting older and do not use it as much as the kids so I only do 50-60 of these per month. But the kids are nuts not just with texting but specifically with video and picture messaging. They do loads of it, thousands of texts and hundreds of pictures per month. Email to them IS text messaging. They send jokes, forward each other funny pictures, all the crap email used to do they do with texting. We are even coming up with new words (SEXTING for example) to explain what they do with it.
If you somehow think that SMS at a few hundred bytes equals a half million bytes, then your arithmetic is off.
You also don't understand what is being said here. When these new services for the iPhone arrive, there will be an explosion of traffic.
It's pretty simple. You're talking around the issue. You're not speaking to it.
If you dig into it all, you absolutely realize this because getting MMS and SMS messages to your phone is no different than email. I can email my phone from my computer and likewise do the reverse. SMS/MMS messages go to [email protected]. I messaged a large picture from my phone today to my Facebook page today with no problem. The kids understand this even if you don't. The send loads of stuff over those networks and I don't just mean 160 character messages. I mean ringtones, pictures, videos of them skatingboard, their asscheeks, you name it.
I think I know how it works.
All the crying we've seen here for MMS shows that you don't know how things are being done, and who is using what, and how they would prefer to do it.
If Apple had been correct that people would just do all of these things using e-mail, then they wouldn't have bothered to give in on MMS. Obviously, not that many have been doing it through e-mail.
Also s
treaming video(tv services), music, and GPS. Sorry that Apple doesn't endorse this or wants it done through iTunes but everyone else does it through their carrier just fine.
Except that not nearly as much of it is going on as you think there is, otherwise Apple's products wouldn't be so far ahead in the use of data services.
The most common complaint about AT&T is simple inability to get service aka place calls, use network, etc. Very seldom is the complaint overloaded network (circuits full) in fact I don't think I've ever read that complaint about any provider recently.
When a network is overloaded with use, things are a problem. I won't pretend to say that services couldn't get better, that's true of all the services. But AT&T has the heaviest load.
I have read many complaints about VOICE QUALITY and that bangs again, against that limited view you want to enforce where different forms of data are treated differently. Data is data. Pipes are pipes. I've read loads of complaints about the codecs AT&T uses that reduce voice quality and make calls sound bad. You speak to the issue of network throughput. I've not read anywhere where peope on ANY network are getting great reception but terrible throughput no matter the provider.
I've read the same complaints about Verizon's service, so? And really, those who complain actually know about what codecs they use. BS!
My throughput is as good as any others that I've seen.
So I'll ignore the car analogy which is about throughput because it doesn't address the main issue which is most people complaining they cant even get on the freeway due to lack of on ramp. (no signal)
That's ridiculous! I'm getting tired of hearing that. I've been in more than a few places the past few months, and service is no worse than anyone else's, on average. Sometimes it's worse, but sometimes it's better. I'd love to know who does most of the complaining. Which phones they have, for example. It seems that iPhones users expect more, and complain more.
Finally the last issue you ignore is that very few phones today have wi-fi built in today. It is an iPhone advantage but also allows the iPhone/iPod to register browser share without ever touching the AT&T network. You could be checking your email, browsing the web, doing all those things and not even ping the AT&T cell network if you are near any wifi hotspot. There is no way nor any source I have seen that attempts to separate what people use the iPhone to do from the means of access to do it. Your link again shows smartphone data use but not whether that use was done via the AT&T network or from the home wifi network. It completely leaves out features phones like mine that send large half meg pictures/ringtones/videos/etc. perhaps dozens of times per day.
I'm not ignoring it. But most iPhone WiFi use is also on AT&T's network. Same pipes as you are straining to point out.
Again, data is data, the network is the network.
If it was sent out over the home network, there's a very good chance it doesn't register as an iPhone at all.
[quote]
According the Consumer Reports AT&T was last for service for NYC.
I subscribe. But I've got to say that I don't trust those reports that much. Shortly after 9/11 when we first got our phones, and I got a Samsung i300 Palmphone, with internet, we were on Sprint, which had always received bad ratings. But, we rarely had a problem. No more than my friends on Verizon, who hated their customer service (it gets the worst rating for that around the country).
Southern California isn't exactly suffering from depopulation. A good medium size city here is larger than the largest cities in other states. Inland Empire has about 17 million people in it. I don't think I'm suffering from little traffic. I'm not lucky. My friends have converted from other networks because Verizon handles their business here. I say this as someone who owns three Macs in my home, two iPods and would buy two iPhones tomorrow if they were on the right network.
Most of those "cities" aren't real cities as is NYC. They are spread out over a very large area. If you want to compare, it would be like what is called the Greater New York Metropolitan Area, which has about the same number of people, possibly much more, as it's not exactly defined. NYC has a high population density, and a vastly greater number of very tall buildings. NYC requires a much larger number of cell towers because of this. In my last place of business, Sprint was wonderful, while we couldn't get a signal from verizon anywhere in the building. The Verizon guy who installed our phone network said that was because Verizon had no tower nearby, but Sprint did.
I see iPhones and iTouchs everywhere I go in NYC, far more per capita than anywhere else.
To give an example. Two weeks ago we went to the last parent-teacher conference we'll be going to, as my daughter is graduating from HS. During our subway trip in to Manhattan from Forest Hills in Queens, I saw at least 6 iP/iT. That just in the staion and car we were in. I saw several more when we were in the street, and coming home, another 6 or more.
This is a very high number, but it's typical. I doubt the iP/iT density is nearly as high anywhere else from what I've seen.
My friend even went a tried to convert. He bought the iPhone, converted his entire family to AT&T brought it home and called me from his living room. He realized the problem when I told him I couldn't hear him in the car with his window down. He was in his living room. He tried it for two more days and it had to go back.
Another friend had started with AT&T, moved to Cingular, watched AT&T buy them and the whole time had spotty cell service. He kept his landline because of this. He switched to Verizon and now has no landline because he gets all his calls.
We seem to have different friends and experiences.
As I said, I had problems with the iPhone 3G when I got it. I didn't deny that. I reported my problems here over time.
But AT&T hasn't been sleeping. 3G service got much better several of months ago.
As for me, as I said my expectations are insane. I have no landline at all. My phone must make and receive calls on par with a landline or I would be upset. For now, for where I live, Verizon does this. My phone is an LG Dare. It is a feature phone that I bought because of the camera. I use that camera often and send the pics all over the place.
I'm not ready to give up a landline. If there are power outages, cell towers will go down just as they did the last time, and you won't be able to recharge you cell batteries anyway. So if it lasts more than just a short time?no service. The companies say they've been upgrading their towers, but telephony experts have been saying that it won't help much.
Meanwhile, POTS service has its own power stations. Just like the last time, when my wife was able to plug the cheap Radio Shack basic phone (with lit keys) into the wall outlet to get and make calls as usual, in the next blackout, when VOIP and cell networks go down, we will still be able to phone.
[quote]
I'm going to politely suggest that perhaps you are becoming trapped by your demographics. Most kids I know would rather text each other across the room than talk. I cannot emphasize enough how different this is with the the kids especially. Have someone under 18 show you all the crap on their phone. (if they dare) Texting can be done via SMS and the iPhone already does that as well. MMS is different and much more data intensive. My phone allows me to send videos from my phone straight to YouTube for example (since it takes video at 640x480@15 fps.)
I have a daughter who is seventeen and a half. She has a lot of friends who are over a lot of the time. Believe it or not, we talk. I do work at her HS. I talk to those kids as well.
I'm not exactly out of it, certainly not more than you are, and likely less.
Like a number of people on these forums, I'm not naive about all this. I was the one who insisted we get the iPhones. My daughter at first resisted because, like many of her friends, she wanted to continue with a clamshell that was smaller. But as more of her friends were getting iPhones, she relented.
Let's take the premise of this thread along with what we know about iPhone 3.0 software. What is Apple offering guaranteed on the next version of the iPhone that might create the demand noted in this thread, MMS messaging.
Remember that I'm the one here who has been saying that MMS is much more data intensive, or have you forgotten?
They limit them to smartphone platforms. Your own link confirms this.
Um, I SAID that.
That was the best I could do quickly. since that story came out, it was linked to, and quoted so much, it knocked out the other stories about the overall data service use that have been around. Google moves links up that they find to be more popular, so it becomes harder to find other articles after a while.
All phones are now 3G.
That's not even close to being true.
What are you talking about? On most carriers MMS is included with the data plan. It is only in bizarro AT&T/iPhone world where you end up paying for both as add-ons. I can choose to pay for messaging minus data or data which includes messaging. There is no weird combo you mention where you get data, but no messaging for the rest of us. For us it isn't an "or" choice.
This is the case if you get an unlimited data/messaging plan. AT&T has similar unlimited plans.
So we get that MMS isn't useful for you but Apple felt compelled to add it and clearly millions of people get use out of it. It generates plenty of network data.
I'm simply saying its limited and costs money. While email is more flexible, has many more options, and is free.
Most regular cell phones and even most features phones do not have browser advanced enough to allow use of these services and even the iPhone cannot use them through a browser without flash. The claim (hung out there as you seem to do) was that Verizon keeps things off their network so they really don't have much data to move. The point is not only do they not keep it off, they provide a gateway to get the media out there. Smartphones that support flash are in no form or fashion prevented from accessing the services and sites you mentioned. The "apps" or wrappers you talk about Apple "allowing" are nothing more than wrappers to get around the limitations of the iPhone with regard to flash. It is wrong and unless you provide a source to prove it right, do not conflate the two again.
Many media services do not require flash and as mobile devices grow many more are offering media without flash.
Verizon provides a gateway to services it has set up with content studios. Those are not general services offered on the internet.
.
It is true to a degree in that they must "bless" the apps to be downloaded through their app store. Without that the media cannot be streamed or loaded onto the phone. Everyone else can just move media onto their cards like a flash drive. Do you deny this is true?
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying you can download media off of the internet and store it on media cards? I've never seen a phone that can do this.
Finally do you admit that any phone with a browser capable of using flash or with a site designed to wrap the media in an understandble form is not denied from using that service by their carrier?
Because this is what you claimed earlier....
No phones that use flash cannot simply use any flash website. No one is going on Hulu with their phone and watching videos.
Phones use Flash lite. Flash lite is not the same as the flash on your computer. Flash lite is not capable of rendering all of the flash content available on the internet. On top of that a phone is only capable of playing video that limited to a certain size and bit rate. Flash video comes in all sizes and bit rate, its hit and miss whether it can even play or not.
You can however purchase data without VCast and stream as much as you want from where ever you want.
No you can't because phones cannot play all of the video available on the web.
The data plan isn't the limitation here. Much like with the iPhone the limitations are with the technology on the phones. You don't seem to realize the reason those 3rd parties are doing that is to provide a means of the iPhone to access their content since that content is accessed via flash and the iPhone doesn't support that. You are essentually claiming a problem as a feature. Other phones that don't have that problem don't have that "feature" either.
Its not a wrapper its an application and user interface. A user interface designed for the iPhone screen an input is much easier to use than an interface designed for a desktop computer and mouse.
If by efficient you mean the iPhone can handle it then you are right. However this is all VCast and other services are doing for a plethora of other phones. I can go through VCAST and get shows from CBS, NBC, and ABC. They could offer their own third party apps but since Verizon provides the services, they just line up and take advantage of it.
They don't just line up. Verizon is paying for this service. You pay Verizon and Verizon pays the content providers.
Voice is not the same as data services. Get that straight.
In the end it is all digital data.
If you somehow think that SMS at a few hundred bytes equals a half million bytes, then your arithmetic is off.
I've never claimed contrary to this so I have no idea to what you are referring.
You also don't understand what is being said here. When these new services for the iPhone arrive, there will be an explosion of traffic.
Yes, unnamed sources have said unnamed features from anticipated phone will cause an explosion based off unnamed bits of information. I love rumors but treat them appropriately and you should too.
It's pretty simple. You're talking around the issue. You're not speaking to it.
Actually I'm not the guy ignoring surveys and extrapolating data usage from a single characteristic on a small sample.
I think I know how it works.
I think you don't. See how much fun this is to do? You should know better.
All the crying we've seen here for MMS shows that you don't know how things are being done, and who is using what, and how they would prefer to do it.
If Apple had been correct that people would just do all of these things using e-mail, then they wouldn't have bothered to give in on MMS. Obviously, not that many have been doing it through e-mail.
I have no idea where you are coming from but you just stated what I have been arguing. I've been arguing that MMS already radically increases data use due to people being much more willing to send large numbers of half meg pictures all over the place thanks to their phones. The counter argument to that from Teno is that MMS sucks because people can't send a Powerpoint with it on their phone. How that relates to data utilization, your guess is as good as mine.
Except that not nearly as much of it is going on as you think there is, otherwise Apple's products wouldn't be so far ahead in the use of data services.
Except they are not that far ahead in use of data services. They are that far ahead in share of traffic by browser on smart phones when combining both wifi and cell, and iPhone and Touch. You and others appear to be conflating this in purpose to state something that is not true. Web usage is not the same thing as sending mms's, using gps data, getting email, and across all phones versus just smart phones.
You can't really be this obtuse about this matter so what is the point in intentionally obscuring the reality of cells and data by citing smart phones and browser share? Do you think it honest to portray one as the other?
When a network is overloaded with use, things are a problem. I won't pretend to say that services couldn't get better, that's true of all the services. But AT&T has the heaviest load.
You base this off a claim about web browsing among smart phone platforms while ignoring the reality of hundreds of millions of additional phones out there all needing and grabbing data for voice and other services.
I've read the same complaints about Verizon's service, so? And really, those who complain actually know about what codecs they use. BS!
There are sites where they probe into it deeper. I haven't saved the links but there are review places that measure everything you can imagine related to cell phones.
My throughput is as good as any others that I've seen.
That's nice but I'm going to trust the survey of 51,700 readers over your personal experience, especially when my own experiences match the survey as well.
That's ridiculous! I'm getting tired of hearing that. I've been in more than a few places the past few months, and service is no worse than anyone else's, on average. Sometimes it's worse, but sometimes it's better. I'd love to know who does most of the complaining. Which phones they have, for example. It seems that iPhones users expect more, and complain more.
51,700 say otherwise and it isn't just magical wishing on a pony nor is it users of one network knocking down another. You've noted that you came through the fire as well and appear to forgive and forget. Well perhaps others don't or won't wait for someone to take a year or even six months to resolve the issues. Again, my phone is primary no matter what. Anyone who wants to take even two months to resolves issues is going to be fired from being my provider. Others clearly have different expectations. However being "tired of hearing that" doesn't change the survey results.
I'm not ignoring it. But most iPhone WiFi use is also on AT&T's network. Same pipes as you are straining to point out.
Again, data is data, the network is the network.
Nonsense home wifi is much different than cell access.
If it was sent out over the home network, there's a very good chance it doesn't register as an iPhone at all.
I'll be happy to listen to the explanation as to why the iPhone running Safari-mobile edition would suddenly stop identifying itself as that.
According the Consumer Reports AT&T was last for service for NYC.
I subscribe. But I've got to say that I don't trust those reports that much. Shortly after 9/11 when we first got our phones, and I got a Samsung i300 Palmphone, with internet, we were on Sprint, which had always received bad ratings. But, we rarely had a problem. No more than my friends on Verizon, who hated their customer service (it gets the worst rating for that around the country).
Most of those "cities" aren't real cities as is NYC. They are spread out over a very large area. If you want to compare, it would be like what is called the Greater New York Metropolitan Area, which has about the same number of people, possibly much more, as it's not exactly defined. NYC has a high population density, and a vastly greater number of very tall buildings. NYC requires a much larger number of cell towers because of this. In my last place of business, Sprint was wonderful, while we couldn't get a signal from verizon anywhere in the building. The Verizon guy who installed our phone network said that was because Verizon had no tower nearby, but Sprint did.
I see iPhones and iTouchs everywhere I go in NYC, far more per capita than anywhere else.
To give an example. Two weeks ago we went to the last parent-teacher conference we'll be going to, as my daughter is graduating from HS. During our subway trip in to Manhattan from Forest Hills in Queens, I saw at least 6 iP/iT. That just in the staion and car we were in. I saw several more when we were in the street, and coming home, another 6 or more.
This is a very high number, but it's typical. I doubt the iP/iT density is nearly as high anywhere else from what I've seen.
We seem to have different friends and experiences.
Well my experiences don't lead me to ignore a survey of 51,700 and call places where 17 million people "not real cities." This is a ridiculous length to go to to ignore real data and justify an anecdotal opinion. Your argument amounts to "I'm ignoring 17 million people for what I saw coming home on the subway."
As I said, I had problems with the iPhone 3G when I got it. I didn't deny that. I reported my problems here over time.
But AT&T hasn't been sleeping. 3G service got much better several of months ago
How about those of us that never had problems, continue to not have problems and have been happily not bitching about AT&T sucking for a period of time while gladly tethering, mmsing, browsing, etc on our phones. How about we believe that when even your anecdotal experience reflects a past level of dissatisfaction, the survey of 51,700 will probably reflect that as well.
I'm not ready to give up a landline. If there are power outages, cell towers will go down just as they did the last time, and you won't be able to recharge you cell batteries anyway. So if it lasts more than just a short time—no service. The companies say they've been upgrading their towers, but telephony experts have been saying that it won't help much.
Generator, car battery, inverters, you name it. Some of us have batteries that last more than a day so we can consider the possibilities. When I was just in Mexico camping on a beach for a week, I charged my phone just fine in my car using an inverter. Finally here is a serious scary proposition, some of us could you know... carry EXTRA batteries for our phones, maybe even EXTENDED batteries for our phones since we can remove them.
Weird I know, but think about it. I'm pocketing the money right now in savings.
Meanwhile, POTS service has its own power stations. Just like the last time, when my wife was able to plug the cheap Radio Shack basic phone (with lit keys) into the wall outlet to get and make calls as usual, in the next blackout, when VOIP and cell networks go down, we will still be able to phone.
I'm sure if push comes to shove they can take my 911 call from the phone I'll plug in. If not then I'll call 611 and then 911. How's that?
I have a daughter who is seventeen and a half. She has a lot of friends who are over a lot of the time. Believe it or not, we talk. I do work at her HS. I talk to those kids as well.
I'm not exactly out of it, certainly not more than you are, and likely less.
Like a number of people on these forums, I'm not naive about all this. I was the one who insisted we get the iPhones. My daughter at first resisted because, like many of her friends, she wanted to continue with a clamshell that was smaller. But as more of her friends were getting iPhones, she relented.
So she wanted something different. You made her take the iPhone. She relented and that means you now know what the cool kids want and are doing? Interesting reasoning. I mean it could be a great thing considering what most of them are doing but clearly you made her take it versus her making you get her one. I don't call that knowing what the kids want, but telling them what they will take.
Remember that I'm the one here who has been saying that MMS is much more data intensive, or have you forgotten?
I haven't followed all the threads in the iPhone forum. If you contend as I do, that MMS will create a need for much more data bandwidth, then we are on the same page and in agreement.
That was the best I could do quickly. since that story came out, it was linked to, and quoted so much, it knocked out the other stories about the overall data service use that have been around. Google moves links up that they find to be more popular, so it becomes harder to find other articles after a while.
However that has nothing to do with overall data use by cell networks. It would be like quoting what model of tires is most used by sport car drivers when driving a track and extrapolating that to every car commuting in traffic. It doesn't work. It isn't even close. Smart phones using web browsers is nothing like regular phones and all the other data services as well.
This is the case if you get an unlimited data/messaging plan. AT&T has similar unlimited plans.
I'm simply saying its limited and costs money. While email is more flexible, has many more options, and is free.
Free with a data plan you mean unless you are going to suggest that a phone that requires a data plan doesn't really need one and that you bought portable device so you can sit in your living room and not use it when you are out and about. MMS is cheaper than the data plan and in most cases for non-smart phones you can add mms and data for less than AT&T data for the iPhone.
Many media services do not require flash and as mobile devices grow many more are offering media without flash.
I guess by many you mean, not all the ones you linked to with regard to their web interface.
Verizon provides a gateway to services it has set up with content studios. Those are not general services offered on the internet.
You seriously think the websites you linked are not under the same stipulations? Please don't be delusional. They offer that media because of the agreements they have and they do not offer other media because they have no agreements for it. Same thing.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying you can download media off of the internet and store it on media cards? I've never seen a phone that can do this.
I don't save it to my card from my phone, but I do save it off the internet and then transfer it to my phone. It doesn't need to go through iTunes to get on the phone.
No phones that use flash cannot simply use any flash website. No one is going on Hulu with their phone and watching videos.
Please address the point. You claimed they would not be ALLOWED by their providers. Is that true or not?
Phones use Flash lite. Flash lite is not the same as the flash on your computer. Flash lite is not capable of rendering all of the flash content available on the internet. On top of that a phone is only capable of playing video that limited to a certain size and bit rate. Flash video comes in all sizes and bit rate, its hit and miss whether it can even play or not.
Correct and whether they convert it for the iPhone and add an app that points to the network content, or whether they tell a WAP browser how to open it, etc. It streams just fine across all providers because contrary to your claim, no one is cutting them off or shutting them down.
No you can't because phones cannot play all of the video available on the web.
The phones playing it and the provider denying it is not the same thing. Why do you continue to do this? You claim the provider won't allow it and then claim because not all the phones can access the same format, that it is the provider who has denied it. That isn't true.
Its not a wrapper its an application and user interface. A user interface designed for the iPhone screen an input is much easier to use than an interface designed for a desktop computer and mouse.
Enjoy your opinion. Several of them I've seen, especially apps like Facebook, look no different from the browser to me.
They don't just line up. Verizon is paying for this service. You pay Verizon and Verizon pays the content providers.
I'm going to be polite and try not to be a total asshole to someone who is clearly delusional if they think websites like Hulu, TV.com and all the others you mentioned here are not paying content providers for content in formats and on terms that they find acceptable for providing that content. It is the same thing. Hulu inserts commercials, Verizon doesn't and charges $5 a month for it.
Finally again, smartphones demand the data plan. Apple 3.0 features clearly allow microtransactions within these apps now. If you don't think you might be paying for it soon then enjoy the ride while you can. There is no free ride. It all gets paid for someway.
MMS is cheaper than the data plan and in most cases for non-smart phones you can add mms and data for less than AT&T data for the iPhone.
Of course featured phone plans are cheaper than smartphone plans, featured phones are not as capable.
I don't save it to my card from my phone, but I do save it off the internet and then transfer it to my phone. It doesn't need to go through iTunes to get on the phone.
For most people organizing media with one application is the easiest way to do it. There is nothing wrong with iTunes.
Please address the point. You claimed they would not be ALLOWED by their providers. Is that true or not?
My over all point that most mobile carriers do not allow 3rd party media services on to their phones. Of course they cannot block streaming media from websites, but they do not allow apps that more easily serve this purpose.
The phones playing it and the provider denying it is not the same thing. Why do you continue to do this? You claim the provider won't allow it and then claim because not all the phones can access the same format, that it is the provider who has denied it. That isn't true.
These are two different points that you are confusing. One point is that most carriers do not allow 3rd party media service apps on their phones. The other separate point is that simply because a phone has flash lite does not mean it can stream all flash video available on the web.
Enjoy your opinion. Several of them I've seen, especially apps like Facebook, look no different from the browser to me.
This means you don't understand the difference between a web app and a native app. The native Facebook app has several differences from the Facebook web app. The native app has a better lay out and is more polished than the web app. The native app is much faster because it only needs to download content instead of the entire page. The native app is able to use more of Facebook's functionality than the web app.
I'm going to be polite and try not to be a total asshole to someone who is clearly delusional if they think websites like Hulu, TV.com and all the others you mentioned here are not paying content providers for content in formats and on terms that they find acceptable for providing that content. It is the same thing. Hulu inserts commercials, Verizon doesn't and charges $5 a month for it.
Its because you are misunderstanding and missing my point. VCast is a service from Verizon, Verizon does not allow you to use a 3rd party AOL Radio, or Pandora, or Hulu app. Because Verizon wants you to pay them for VCast.
The iPhone allows 3rd party media services. Neither Apple nor AT&T have any affiliation or profit from these services. They are entirely separate 3rd party services that are freely allowed to run on the phone without interference from AT&T.
Hulu is co-owned by NBC and FOX Television. Most of the content comes from their own studios. They do license content from other television studios and production companies. TV.com is owned by CBS which has primarily CBS owned content.
The point over all is that Apple and AT&T have nothing to do with these media services. They operate completely independent of Apple and AT&T. VCast and Sprint TV are owned and controlled by Verizon and Sprint.
Finally again, smartphones demand the data plan. Apple 3.0 features clearly allow microtransactions within these apps now. If you don't think you might be paying for it soon then enjoy the ride while you can. There is no free ride. It all gets paid for someway.
That's totally up to the app developers, this has nothing to do with Apple or AT&T.
That's not even close to being true.
I wasn't talking about 3G penetration rate.
I said "any (including Apple) of top 10 (OK, 11) mobile phone makers, totaling together good 80++% of market share, offers nowadays at least isolated models (more oftenly several lines) of 3G-compliant handsets"...
Of course featured phone plans are cheaper than smartphone plans, featured phones are not as capable.
A lot of them are as capable but people like the choice of whether to have a data plan or not.
For most people organizing media with one application is the easiest way to do it. There is nothing wrong with iTunes.
There's nothing wrong with the Finder either. What is your point?
My over all point that most mobile carriers do not allow 3rd party media services on to their phones. Of course they cannot block streaming media from websites, but they do not allow apps that more easily serve this purpose.
Please name or cite for me the third party app that was declined for a brand of smart phone on AT&T or a different network. You are making crap up. This does not exist. It is a lie. Providers do not even control the apps for smart phones. Hell, cite it for any phone no matter the level. I've read about every single app that was declined from the Apple Store. I've never heard about the reverse even once. Cite a source and just stop repeating nonsense.
Finally, in addition to your overall point being wrong. You were called out as wrong on the reality that if it can be streamed, it is allowed to be streamed. No one is stopping anyone from doing anything.
These are two different points that you are confusing. One point is that most carriers do not allow 3rd party media service apps on their phones. The other separate point is that simply because a phone has flash lite does not mean it can stream all flash video available on the web.
The first one is made up nonsense. The second point is something you want to fixate on due to being proven wrong about the fact that no one is blocking any streaming PERIOD.
This means you don't understand the difference between a web app and a native app. The native Facebook app has several differences from the Facebook web app. The native app has a better lay out and is more polished than the web app. The native app is much faster because it only needs to download content instead of the entire page. The native app is able to use more of Facebook's functionality than the web app.
Let me explain something to you and try not to be an insulting ass as you have done. When someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't mean they don't understand. It means they do not have the same preferences as you. You declare the app more "polished." That is called "opinion." Your opinions have nothing to do with my brain power. Understand that or be prepared to have your own brain power questioned. Second, you talk about speed while keeping a phone on a shit network. Did it occur to you that those of us on non-shit networks do not suffer the slowdowns you note? Maybe we've heard of this concept called caching and our phones don't need to keep re-downloading everything.
Maybe the differences just aren't enough to warrant managing an icon and loading an app versus just using a bookmark, especially when on a phone that won't multitask well. Maybe we don't want to leave one app and load another.
Maybe there are some differences your brain is not understanding or is confused about.
Its because you are misunderstanding and missing my point. VCast is a service from Verizon, Verizon does not allow you to use a 3rd party AOL Radio, or Pandora, or Hulu app. Because Verizon wants you to pay them for VCast.
The iPhone allows 3rd party media services. Neither Apple nor AT&T have any affiliation or profit from these services. They are entirely separate 3rd party services that are freely allowed to run on the phone without interference from AT&T.
Hulu is co-owned by NBC and FOX Television. Most of the content comes from their own studios. They do license content from other television studios and production companies. TV.com is owned by CBS which has primarily CBS owned content.
The point over all is that Apple and AT&T have nothing to do with these media services. They operate completely independent of Apple and AT&T. VCast and Sprint TV are owned and controlled by Verizon and Sprint.
Wow thanks for that clarification. Now that you tossed out who owns what it totally negates the fact that all that content is licensed and sent out for profit in one manner or another.
NOT.
Maybe with a second swing you can stop tossing up dust and actually address the point.
I'm going to be polite and try not to be a total asshole to someone who is clearly delusional if they think websites like Hulu, TV.com and all the others you mentioned here are not paying content providers for content in formats and on terms that they find acceptable for providing that content. It is the same thing. Hulu inserts commercials, Verizon doesn't and charges $5 a month for it.
Now maybe you can address the fact that people get paid for their content instead of who owns it and how that must somehow (to you at least) make it irrelevant.
SprintTV is a mobile TV service and Verizon has one totally separate from VCast as well. Totally different and still not on the point of course. You claimed VCast shouldn't "count" in a another bit of distracting dust because it has a cost and shares revenue. Please explain how Hulu, TV.com and others do not have these things. They will insert commercials onto content on their websites and third party apps. There is no free lunch.
I don't want to know who owns them. I want you to address the point. I don't want you to repeat the point and talk about your "overall point" being "mostly" still true. I want the point addressed. I don't want you to tell me I must be "confused" about the point due to your opinions about something being "faster" or "more polished." I want the point addressed.
You haven't stated any proven facts there. Only an opinion that is so vague as to be useless.
I wasn't talking about 3G penetration rate.
I said "any (including Apple) of top 10 (OK, 11) mobile phone makers, totaling together good 80++% of market share, offers nowadays at least isolated models (more oftenly several lines) of 3G-compliant handsets"...
You can use any smilies you want to here, in an attempt to make yourself think that you've won something, but it doesn't change what you've said.
What you've NOW said, is very different from what you said before, in response to Sol's statement, both of which I'll include here, capitalizing the incorrect statement, which you see to want to forget you made:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This may not as big an issue to networks that have a higher percentage of 3G smartphones but I think AT&T will be hurting once again this summer. I fear for the large, dense metropolises.
ivan.rnn01'sreply:
Firstly it's strange. They all should have been rock solid with 3G now. ALL PHONES ARE NOW 3G. Apparently, phone guys aren't likely to be there. Were I Apple, I would do all my best to ensure the ATT 3G ramp up would be as smooth as possible.
It's not always too hard to pretend you didn't say something when it's just spoken. But when it's in a public forum, you can't act as though what's in print isn't there.
I quoted that line the first time, and find it hard to understand how you are denying it.
Just say "Oops! I made a mistake.", and go on from there.
(in response to TenoBell, who says, "The iPhone has multimedia apps that are front ends to media services. AOL Radio, Joost, Pandora, TV.com. Most mobile carriers do not allow such apps on their phones."
Sorry but your are misinformed. They not only allow it but advertise it as a feature.
I cannot believe you're using the completely craptastic V-Cast mess as a contradiction of the point; I think you're closer to making his point than supporting your own.