Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
Camp B ended up being wrong. End o' story.
Far as Apple goes, yes, they knew 3G was necessary. In fact, I told people that. But Apple downplayed the fact, because they didn't have a 3G product to offer right out of the gate. Jobs pushed WiFi instead, because, well, he had to.
I don't think that is a completely accurate story. At least not of my position. You are doing a George Bush with us or against us.
I think 3G at this point is not absolutely necessary to use the iPhone. WiFi does work well and is really fast. But still 3G is a welcomed feature. I don't think Apple suddenly woke up and said people demand 3G so we must now offer it. They always indented to add it at some point.
I don't recall saying that 3G is absolutely unnecessary. But I felt people made too big a deal of its necessity also.Of course we would all rather have faster speeds than slower.
I felt Apple gave a reasonable explanation for its absence. Increasing the size of the device and drawing too much battery power. Many people ignored that and could only see that there is no 3G, which Jobs had already said was going to be in the phone eventually.
That is exactly how I too recall the general conversation. And I agree totally with TenoBell, the issue of 3G is one of functionality (+) traded off against size (-), battery usage (-), price (-), and in the US, availability of 3G outside of major metro areas (-).
But given how fast things seem to be moving, who knows......
I don't think that is a completely accurate story. At least not of my position. You are doing a George Bush with us or against us.
I think 3G at this point is not absolutely necessary to us the iPhone. I do think it would be a great addition. I don't think Apple suddenly woke up and said people demand 3G so we must now offer it. They always indented to add it at some point.
It obviously isn't a requirement, as you say, or no one would have bought the product, or most would have returned them because of its lack.
That hasn't happened, as we see.
But there are some of us who have gotten used to the higher speeds, and don't want to take a step back. So we will wait for the faster models to arrive.
I just hope that ATT can build out its 3G network faster than they have in the past. I believe they had said something about that.
So, the question remains, when will it arrive here? Is there a possibility that if the stories are correct, and there will be an introduction of the iPhone in Europe in November, and it WILL have 3G, that we will see a new model with it here at the same time?
If so, will ATT announce that their 3G network has sufficiently expanded so that the service is now worthwhile for the 3G iPhone to be released?
Or will we still have to wait some time?
It looks as though we will have to await some official announcements. All this guessing is tiring.
But there are some of us who have gotten used to the higher speeds, and don't want to take a step back. So we will wait for the faster models to arrive.
Yeah and I think that's fine.
I bought the iPhone now because I needed a smartphone badly. I really needed one when the iPhone was announced but waited so I could have it. If I already had a smartphone it would have been much more difficult for me to justify splurging just to have the iPhone. Since that need was filled it would have been easier to wait for one with 3G.
If by summer next year they have a newer iPhone with 3G and more memory I can easily see selling my current one and buying that newer version.
I bought the iPhone now because I needed a smartphone badly. I really needed one when the iPhone was announced but waited so I could have it. If I already had a smartphone it would have been much more difficult for me to justify splurging just to have the iPhone. Since that need was filled it would have been easier to wait for one with 3G.
If by summer next year they have a newer iPhone with 3G and more memory I can easily see selling my current one and buying that newer version.
In my case, I bought my treo before the iPhone was announced last January. Before the Treo, I didn't have 3G, so I wasn't used to to using my old Samsung i330 Palmphone, but it was slow!
Maybe I would have gotten the iPhone, and switched all three of us at once. But, after having used the higher speed for some time, the iPhone is just too slow, despite the better experience on WiFi.
But, as it WILL come, there is no rush to jump over.
Camp A said it was pretty gosh-darn necessary, and needed to be on the iPhone soon, months not years. Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
.
Wha? I missed this debate, but I'd love to see anyone who said it wasn't necessary and wouldn't be seen on the iPhone for two years at least. I'm sure you have some post to point to? Anyone who thought it would be more than a year would be nuts - one silicon process generation would be enough to shrink down any power requirements.
It sounds to me like you are claiming some bizarre victory in a debate where everyone already agreed.
Oh and by the way - I don't have an iPhone but I've set up several for customers. I will be buying one once it has 3G, no matter if it's $400 or $600. And I am pretty sure that the recent price drop was as much about making room for a new 3G 16 GB model as anything else.
Depends on which 2.5G or 3G technology you're talking about. There's several.
For the iPhone, the 2.5G being discussed is EDGE. In ATT's implementation, we're talking around 75-135 kbps... at least that what was being claimed on Cingular/ATT's site.
HSDPA would be the 3G technology for the iPhone, and it's 400-700 kbps in ATT's implementation... again, claimed speed from their site.
So, 3G is roughly 5 times faster than 2.5G, with these techs in their current state of implementation. Of course, that's for things like sustained downloads. Factors like latency may make it seem not quite 5 times faster.
You can't blame them there. That's good sales technique.
I can, actually. It definitely keeps their marketshare from 'being all it can be'. Apple's doing well now, sure, but they could be doing a lot better, if they were even close to being as aggressive with Mac pricing as they are now in iPhone pricing.
One can only hope that in the future that becomes a priority for them.
Quote:
Generally though, these Express slots aren't really needed for the majority of MB users right now. In the future, possibly.
Well, I'm sure not a few MB users would like a slot so they could put a 3G card in it, eh?
You yourself are heavily investing in Sprint/Clearwire/WiMax, surely you see the implications.
I don't think that is a completely accurate story. At least not of my position. You are doing a George Bush with us or against us.
Bush insults aside (I hate the guy), I think I'm pretty close in my recollection. I laid down what the situation was, and got a LOT of push back from a LOT of ppl on this site. You were one. Now, you weren't the worst of the lot, but ya definitely didn't want to believe me, for whatever reason.
It's ok, I'm just pointing out what happened. If you want to remember it differently, that's cool.
Quote:
I think 3G at this point is not absolutely necessary to use the iPhone. WiFi does work well and is really fast. But still 3G is a welcomed feature. I don't think Apple suddenly woke up and said people demand 3G so we must now offer it. They always indented to add it at some point.
Yeah, and I'm the one who had to tell the RDFers that when they were saying that 3G sucked, was far inferior to WiFi, wasn't gonna be in the iPhone for at least two years, and were buying into Steve's 3G two-step so hard. \
In fact, when the reviews came out and nearly ALL of them didn't like the lack of 3G, I do remember you saying something to the effect of, "You were right TB, but..." yadda yadda yadda, something to the effect of don't gloat or 3G still isn't all that.
LOL, look guys, remember it however you want. All I know is, I laid it out, and got argued with massively for saying what is now conventional wisdom among you guys. No, you didn't have it from square one. Many AIers echoed one side of the Apple party line and sought to de-bunk/disprove anyone who didn't. It was some of the most drawn-out debate I can ever remember engaging in. Fun in a way, but I did indeed get a TON of static here.
Wha? I missed this debate, but I'd love to see anyone who said it wasn't necessary and wouldn't be seen on the iPhone for two years at least. I'm sure you have some post to point to? Anyone who thought it would be more than a year would be nuts - one silicon process generation would be enough to shrink down any power requirements.
Just check out most any thread that was
1- even remotely about the iPhone
2- was on the front page
3- was in the two month period before the iPhone launch
The '3G debate' went across several threads. And went on and on and on...
Quote:
It sounds to me like you are claiming some bizarre victory in a debate where everyone already agreed.
If only. But no, people definitely did not agree, and they made that quite clear. \
Quote:
Oh and by the way - I don't have an iPhone but I've set up several for customers. I will be buying one once it has 3G, no matter if it's $400 or $600. And I am pretty sure that the recent price drop was as much about making room for a new 3G 16 GB model as anything else.
I'd say its more about not having the iPod Touch cannibalize iPhone sales, and making an aggressive assault on what is a new and likely difficult market for Apple (though potentially an extremely rewarding one).
Plus sales at the old price point may not have been trending quite the way they wanted them too, once the launch hype subsided.
Well, I'm sure not a few MB users would like a slot so they could put a 3G card in it, eh?
You yourself are heavily investing in Sprint/Clearwire/WiMax, surely you see the implications.
.
I'm not sure how many 3G cards are available right now, though I know there are a few. It's the phone companies that limit this with the high monthly charges. Until they go down, the interest will be low for anyone except professionals, or business people, who really need it. Just "wanting it isn't often an excuse for paying for it.
What are the chances that 3G will also be embedded technology in a future Apple notebook?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Probably very little.
3G data cards are huge in Europe because they're so much better than WiFi (on everything but speed, of course) and it certainly would be useful over here in North America. I know that I'd be much happier giving my phone company an extra x dollars a month and never having to worry about either WiFi hotspots (at least in big cities) or an ISP again.
That said? no to embedded. 3G technology is going fast enough that a slot for a card would probably be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Exactly. And that was the debate here, pretty much... 3G, how necessary? 3G when?
Camp A said it was pretty gosh-darn necessary, and needed to be on the iPhone soon, months not years. Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
Camp B ended up being wrong. End o' story.
As a proud member of Camp A (at least as regards to Europe, NA is less of a concern)? I WIN! Heh.
The main problem stems from timing. With the FCC in the States ready to spill the beans they have to talk about it ahead of time. If they do so before Christmas they may hurt their holiday sales.
I think that for Apple's best long-term prospects announcing a 3G iPhone in October for a European (where Europe = France/Germany/UK) launch in October/November is the best move.
What they'd do is also talk about the other improved aspects (better camera, 16GB of storage I imagine) and then say oh and it's also coming to the States say December (with the different UMTS bands, of course). I don't know how long the FCC takes, though it's not 6 months, so I don't know when Apple has to submit it to the FCC to get it back for an early December launch.
However I could easily see Apple instead decide to announce the iPhone Rev. B at Macworld, shipping in the Spring. If they delay it to then the Japanese get Rev. B[1], if Rev. B is in December then Rev. C is in the summer and the Japanese get that as their launch version.
Both are pretty viable alternatives. The main questions is whether the EDGE iPhone would piss off the Europeans enough to hurt future European iPhones.
[1] As I'm explained elsewhere a Japanese (or South Korean) iPhone would require a lot of extra software, plus at least an e-cash chip (Apple could include that as deadweight on the European iPhone, as it's small and cheap, so they could sell only two models: Europe/Japan/world, North America). As Japan uses the same UMTS band as Europe the main difference could be in the software.
Ideally a Japanese/SK iPhone would also include GPS, a really good camera, and digital TV. I don't see any of those until Revision C of the iPhone, though. The added benefit being that by Revision C of the iPhone the European digital TV market should be much better, and so those features would be used over there as well.
Bush insults aside (I hate the guy), I think I'm pretty close in my recollection. I laid down what the situation was, and got a LOT of push back from a LOT of ppl on this site. You were one. Now, you weren't the worst of the lot, but ya definitely didn't want to believe me, for whatever reason.
It's ok, I'm just pointing out what happened. If you want to remember it differently, that's cool.
Yeah, and I'm the one who had to tell the RDFers that when they were saying that 3G sucked, was far inferior to WiFi, wasn't gonna be in the iPhone for at least two years, and were buying into Steve's 3G two-step so hard. \
In fact, when the reviews came out and nearly ALL of them didn't like the lack of 3G, I do remember you saying something to the effect of, "You were right TB, but..." yadda yadda yadda, something to the effect of don't gloat or 3G still isn't all that.
LOL, look guys, remember it however you want. All I know is, I laid it out, and got argued with massively for saying what is now conventional wisdom among you guys. No, you didn't have it from square one. Many AIers echoed one side of the Apple party line and sought to de-bunk/disprove anyone who didn't. It was some of the most drawn-out debate I can ever remember engaging in. Fun in a way, but I did indeed get a TON of static here.
Oh well, it's the AI way.
.
I think a) you're probably right and b) with more certainty, you've made your point already! This post started reminding me of the bit in the movie, "Big Trouble," based on the Dave Barry novel of the same name, where the characters are driven crazy listening to a radio sports talk show and Gator fans arguing they do, too, have something to say. Ad nauseum. I don't think you want to go there!
Hey, I'm done with that part of it if everyone else is. I just don't dig revisionist history, if you get me.
The important thing is that we're getting a 3G iPhone sooner rather than later. Good news if you're an Apple customer, good news if you're an Apple investor. I'm both.
I'm happy to see the 3G on the way for the iPhone, but my enthusiasm will be limited while 3G coverage is so limited. I'm still waiting and hoping for AT&T to fill in some dead spots in my area where I get no coverage at all at -- that makes it difficult to imagine they'll be in a rush to get 3G much beyond the nearest area with decent coverage (Boston).
The office I work in is one big dead spot for me -- that seems to largely be due to the building itself, but it's still annoying. My company put in a request to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint right after we moved in our new facility for better coverage. Sprint is the only one to have responded quickly. Verizon and AT&T are taking their dear sweet time.
If by some miracle 3G signal coverage reaches me sooner than a 3G iPhone arrives, then and only then will I be eagerly anticipating a 3G iPhone.
The new slots Apple uses in the MBP should, hopefully migrate down to the MB. That should be able to take these cards, should Apple, or third parties, decide to provide them.
It could be an internal slot too, for an optional card like how WiFi and Bluetooth used to be handled. It could offer a connection to better antenna than a side nub of a card too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
Exactly. And that was the debate here, pretty much... 3G, how necessary? 3G when?
Camp A said it was pretty gosh-darn necessary, and needed to be on the iPhone soon, months not years. Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
Camp B ended up being wrong. End o' story.
Woah, when was 3G coming soon was absolutely confirmed? It all looks like rumor and speculation so far, but with more circumstantial evidence, that's all. Don't get me wrong, that would make me happy, but I don't want to be counting the chickens before they hatch, or so the expression goes.
Comments
Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
Camp B ended up being wrong. End o' story.
Far as Apple goes, yes, they knew 3G was necessary. In fact, I told people that. But Apple downplayed the fact, because they didn't have a 3G product to offer right out of the gate. Jobs pushed WiFi instead, because, well, he had to.
I don't think that is a completely accurate story. At least not of my position. You are doing a George Bush with us or against us.
I think 3G at this point is not absolutely necessary to use the iPhone. WiFi does work well and is really fast. But still 3G is a welcomed feature. I don't think Apple suddenly woke up and said people demand 3G so we must now offer it. They always indented to add it at some point.
I think the article did state it would be MB as well as MBP.
But who knows? You know Apple... always try to get 'em to buy the $2000 notebook, even if its overkill for their needs.
.
You can't blame them there. That's good sales technique.
Generally though, these Express slots aren't really needed for the majority of MB users right now. In the future, possibly.
how fast is 3G compared to 2.5G?
Depends on each companies implementation. New versions are coming uot every couple of years, so the difference will become greater as time goes on.
I don't recall saying that 3G is absolutely unnecessary. But I felt people made too big a deal of its necessity also.Of course we would all rather have faster speeds than slower.
I felt Apple gave a reasonable explanation for its absence. Increasing the size of the device and drawing too much battery power. Many people ignored that and could only see that there is no 3G, which Jobs had already said was going to be in the phone eventually.
That is exactly how I too recall the general conversation. And I agree totally with TenoBell, the issue of 3G is one of functionality (+) traded off against size (-), battery usage (-), price (-), and in the US, availability of 3G outside of major metro areas (-).
But given how fast things seem to be moving, who knows......
I don't think that is a completely accurate story. At least not of my position. You are doing a George Bush with us or against us.
I think 3G at this point is not absolutely necessary to us the iPhone. I do think it would be a great addition. I don't think Apple suddenly woke up and said people demand 3G so we must now offer it. They always indented to add it at some point.
It obviously isn't a requirement, as you say, or no one would have bought the product, or most would have returned them because of its lack.
That hasn't happened, as we see.
But there are some of us who have gotten used to the higher speeds, and don't want to take a step back. So we will wait for the faster models to arrive.
I just hope that ATT can build out its 3G network faster than they have in the past. I believe they had said something about that.
So, the question remains, when will it arrive here? Is there a possibility that if the stories are correct, and there will be an introduction of the iPhone in Europe in November, and it WILL have 3G, that we will see a new model with it here at the same time?
If so, will ATT announce that their 3G network has sufficiently expanded so that the service is now worthwhile for the 3G iPhone to be released?
Or will we still have to wait some time?
It looks as though we will have to await some official announcements. All this guessing is tiring.
But there are some of us who have gotten used to the higher speeds, and don't want to take a step back. So we will wait for the faster models to arrive.
Yeah and I think that's fine.
I bought the iPhone now because I needed a smartphone badly. I really needed one when the iPhone was announced but waited so I could have it. If I already had a smartphone it would have been much more difficult for me to justify splurging just to have the iPhone. Since that need was filled it would have been easier to wait for one with 3G.
If by summer next year they have a newer iPhone with 3G and more memory I can easily see selling my current one and buying that newer version.
Yeah and I think that's fine.
I bought the iPhone now because I needed a smartphone badly. I really needed one when the iPhone was announced but waited so I could have it. If I already had a smartphone it would have been much more difficult for me to justify splurging just to have the iPhone. Since that need was filled it would have been easier to wait for one with 3G.
If by summer next year they have a newer iPhone with 3G and more memory I can easily see selling my current one and buying that newer version.
In my case, I bought my treo before the iPhone was announced last January. Before the Treo, I didn't have 3G, so I wasn't used to to using my old Samsung i330 Palmphone, but it was slow!
Maybe I would have gotten the iPhone, and switched all three of us at once. But, after having used the higher speed for some time, the iPhone is just too slow, despite the better experience on WiFi.
But, as it WILL come, there is no rush to jump over.
Camp A said it was pretty gosh-darn necessary, and needed to be on the iPhone soon, months not years. Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
.
Wha? I missed this debate, but I'd love to see anyone who said it wasn't necessary and wouldn't be seen on the iPhone for two years at least. I'm sure you have some post to point to? Anyone who thought it would be more than a year would be nuts - one silicon process generation would be enough to shrink down any power requirements.
It sounds to me like you are claiming some bizarre victory in a debate where everyone already agreed.
Oh and by the way - I don't have an iPhone but I've set up several for customers. I will be buying one once it has 3G, no matter if it's $400 or $600. And I am pretty sure that the recent price drop was as much about making room for a new 3G 16 GB model as anything else.
how fast is 3G compared to 2.5G?
Depends on which 2.5G or 3G technology you're talking about. There's several.
For the iPhone, the 2.5G being discussed is EDGE. In ATT's implementation, we're talking around 75-135 kbps... at least that what was being claimed on Cingular/ATT's site.
HSDPA would be the 3G technology for the iPhone, and it's 400-700 kbps in ATT's implementation... again, claimed speed from their site.
So, 3G is roughly 5 times faster than 2.5G, with these techs in their current state of implementation. Of course, that's for things like sustained downloads. Factors like latency may make it seem not quite 5 times faster.
.
You can't blame them there. That's good sales technique.
I can, actually. It definitely keeps their marketshare from 'being all it can be'. Apple's doing well now, sure, but they could be doing a lot better, if they were even close to being as aggressive with Mac pricing as they are now in iPhone pricing.
One can only hope that in the future that becomes a priority for them.
Generally though, these Express slots aren't really needed for the majority of MB users right now. In the future, possibly.
Well, I'm sure not a few MB users would like a slot so they could put a 3G card in it, eh?
You yourself are heavily investing in Sprint/Clearwire/WiMax, surely you see the implications.
.
I don't think that is a completely accurate story. At least not of my position. You are doing a George Bush with us or against us.
Bush insults aside (I hate the guy), I think I'm pretty close in my recollection. I laid down what the situation was, and got a LOT of push back from a LOT of ppl on this site. You were one. Now, you weren't the worst of the lot, but ya definitely didn't want to believe me, for whatever reason.
It's ok, I'm just pointing out what happened. If you want to remember it differently, that's cool.
I think 3G at this point is not absolutely necessary to use the iPhone. WiFi does work well and is really fast. But still 3G is a welcomed feature. I don't think Apple suddenly woke up and said people demand 3G so we must now offer it. They always indented to add it at some point.
Yeah, and I'm the one who had to tell the RDFers that when they were saying that 3G sucked, was far inferior to WiFi, wasn't gonna be in the iPhone for at least two years, and were buying into Steve's 3G two-step so hard.
In fact, when the reviews came out and nearly ALL of them didn't like the lack of 3G, I do remember you saying something to the effect of, "You were right TB, but..." yadda yadda yadda, something to the effect of don't gloat or 3G still isn't all that.
LOL, look guys, remember it however you want. All I know is, I laid it out, and got argued with massively for saying what is now conventional wisdom among you guys. No, you didn't have it from square one. Many AIers echoed one side of the Apple party line and sought to de-bunk/disprove anyone who didn't. It was some of the most drawn-out debate I can ever remember engaging in. Fun in a way, but I did indeed get a TON of static here.
Oh well, it's the AI way.
.
Wha? I missed this debate, but I'd love to see anyone who said it wasn't necessary and wouldn't be seen on the iPhone for two years at least. I'm sure you have some post to point to? Anyone who thought it would be more than a year would be nuts - one silicon process generation would be enough to shrink down any power requirements.
Just check out most any thread that was
1- even remotely about the iPhone
2- was on the front page
3- was in the two month period before the iPhone launch
The '3G debate' went across several threads. And went on and on and on...
It sounds to me like you are claiming some bizarre victory in a debate where everyone already agreed.
If only. But no, people definitely did not agree, and they made that quite clear.
Oh and by the way - I don't have an iPhone but I've set up several for customers. I will be buying one once it has 3G, no matter if it's $400 or $600. And I am pretty sure that the recent price drop was as much about making room for a new 3G 16 GB model as anything else.
I'd say its more about not having the iPod Touch cannibalize iPhone sales, and making an aggressive assault on what is a new and likely difficult market for Apple (though potentially an extremely rewarding one).
Plus sales at the old price point may not have been trending quite the way they wanted them too, once the launch hype subsided.
.
Well, I'm sure not a few MB users would like a slot so they could put a 3G card in it, eh?
You yourself are heavily investing in Sprint/Clearwire/WiMax, surely you see the implications.
.
I'm not sure how many 3G cards are available right now, though I know there are a few. It's the phone companies that limit this with the high monthly charges. Until they go down, the interest will be low for anyone except professionals, or business people, who really need it. Just "wanting it isn't often an excuse for paying for it.
What are the chances that 3G will also be embedded technology in a future Apple notebook?
Probably very little.
3G data cards are huge in Europe because they're so much better than WiFi (on everything but speed, of course) and it certainly would be useful over here in North America. I know that I'd be much happier giving my phone company an extra x dollars a month and never having to worry about either WiFi hotspots (at least in big cities) or an ISP again.
That said? no to embedded. 3G technology is going fast enough that a slot for a card would probably be better.
Exactly. And that was the debate here, pretty much... 3G, how necessary? 3G when?
Camp A said it was pretty gosh-darn necessary, and needed to be on the iPhone soon, months not years. Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
Camp B ended up being wrong. End o' story.
As a proud member of Camp A (at least as regards to Europe, NA is less of a concern)? I WIN! Heh.
The main problem stems from timing. With the FCC in the States ready to spill the beans they have to talk about it ahead of time. If they do so before Christmas they may hurt their holiday sales.
I think that for Apple's best long-term prospects announcing a 3G iPhone in October for a European (where Europe = France/Germany/UK) launch in October/November is the best move.
What they'd do is also talk about the other improved aspects (better camera, 16GB of storage I imagine) and then say oh and it's also coming to the States say December (with the different UMTS bands, of course). I don't know how long the FCC takes, though it's not 6 months, so I don't know when Apple has to submit it to the FCC to get it back for an early December launch.
However I could easily see Apple instead decide to announce the iPhone Rev. B at Macworld, shipping in the Spring. If they delay it to then the Japanese get Rev. B[1], if Rev. B is in December then Rev. C is in the summer and the Japanese get that as their launch version.
Both are pretty viable alternatives. The main questions is whether the EDGE iPhone would piss off the Europeans enough to hurt future European iPhones.
[1] As I'm explained elsewhere a Japanese (or South Korean) iPhone would require a lot of extra software, plus at least an e-cash chip (Apple could include that as deadweight on the European iPhone, as it's small and cheap, so they could sell only two models: Europe/Japan/world, North America). As Japan uses the same UMTS band as Europe the main difference could be in the software.
Ideally a Japanese/SK iPhone would also include GPS, a really good camera, and digital TV. I don't see any of those until Revision C of the iPhone, though. The added benefit being that by Revision C of the iPhone the European digital TV market should be much better, and so those features would be used over there as well.
As a proud member of Camp A (at least as regards to Europe, NA is less of a concern)? I WIN! Heh.
Yeah, I remember you Monk, you were definitely a valiant Camp A'er who had it down from day one.
*slaps Monk a virtual high-five*
.
Bush insults aside (I hate the guy), I think I'm pretty close in my recollection. I laid down what the situation was, and got a LOT of push back from a LOT of ppl on this site. You were one. Now, you weren't the worst of the lot, but ya definitely didn't want to believe me, for whatever reason.
It's ok, I'm just pointing out what happened. If you want to remember it differently, that's cool.
Yeah, and I'm the one who had to tell the RDFers that when they were saying that 3G sucked, was far inferior to WiFi, wasn't gonna be in the iPhone for at least two years, and were buying into Steve's 3G two-step so hard.
In fact, when the reviews came out and nearly ALL of them didn't like the lack of 3G, I do remember you saying something to the effect of, "You were right TB, but..." yadda yadda yadda, something to the effect of don't gloat or 3G still isn't all that.
LOL, look guys, remember it however you want. All I know is, I laid it out, and got argued with massively for saying what is now conventional wisdom among you guys. No, you didn't have it from square one. Many AIers echoed one side of the Apple party line and sought to de-bunk/disprove anyone who didn't. It was some of the most drawn-out debate I can ever remember engaging in. Fun in a way, but I did indeed get a TON of static here.
Oh well, it's the AI way.
.
I think a) you're probably right and b) with more certainty, you've made your point already! This post started reminding me of the bit in the movie, "Big Trouble," based on the Dave Barry novel of the same name, where the characters are driven crazy listening to a radio sports talk show and Gator fans arguing they do, too, have something to say. Ad nauseum. I don't think you want to go there!
The important thing is that we're getting a 3G iPhone sooner rather than later. Good news if you're an Apple customer, good news if you're an Apple investor. I'm both.
.
The office I work in is one big dead spot for me -- that seems to largely be due to the building itself, but it's still annoying. My company put in a request to AT&T, Verizon and Sprint right after we moved in our new facility for better coverage. Sprint is the only one to have responded quickly. Verizon and AT&T are taking their dear sweet time.
If by some miracle 3G signal coverage reaches me sooner than a 3G iPhone arrives, then and only then will I be eagerly anticipating a 3G iPhone.
The new slots Apple uses in the MBP should, hopefully migrate down to the MB. That should be able to take these cards, should Apple, or third parties, decide to provide them.
It could be an internal slot too, for an optional card like how WiFi and Bluetooth used to be handled. It could offer a connection to better antenna than a side nub of a card too.
Exactly. And that was the debate here, pretty much... 3G, how necessary? 3G when?
Camp A said it was pretty gosh-darn necessary, and needed to be on the iPhone soon, months not years. Camp B said it wasn't that necessary, and probably wouldn't be on the iPhone for two years at least.
Camp B ended up being wrong. End o' story.
Woah, when was 3G coming soon was absolutely confirmed? It all looks like rumor and speculation so far, but with more circumstantial evidence, that's all. Don't get me wrong, that would make me happy, but I don't want to be counting the chickens before they hatch, or so the expression goes.