Sounds like you are questioning those home made macs for sale.
That was the last one from my mind. I'm talking amore about the AI articles where Apple is accused of using technology that someone else patented and the articles where a new Apple patent comes up that has been used by others for some time.? AU articles regarding patents
If Apple sues "Pshystar" or cease and desist letters they will look like the bad guy, but I don't think Apple is worried about it right now. Despite Psystar's sketchy start their machines are still questionable.
They send you the $129 copy of Leopard unopened?because you need an OSx86 version?which I think they sell you for $150. So if you need to reinstall Leopard you have to pull out the HDD and ship it to them. They then have access to al your files so you could save a few bucks on a garage-built machine that doesn't have the more optimized drivers and where getting the device fixed under warranty will be a crap shoot.
Plus, you can't setup BootCamp, use the Leopard Install DIsc, or update the OS and a good deal of the Apps. It also doesn't come with any iLife apps. My point is, I don't think Apple is worried about them; The vast other home built OSx86 projects will certainly trump what Psystar can sell. SWIM has been using a Dell as home server running OS X for a couple years now.It works great!
I think they realized that litigation may stall them but not solve the larger problem. I suspect that they may be working with Intel, or perhaps with P.A. Semi now, to use HW authentication to make the clones harder to crack.
Quote:
Additionally, Microsoft does not prevent anyone from using bootcamp and VMware and other sorts of dual boot software. I would think that this type freedom to add the Mac OS to another machine might appeal to Apple's freeform/ease of use interface style.
But MS makes money from their OS. They don't produce desktop hardware (save for their mice). Apple bread and butter is the HW so virtual OS X isn't an attractive option to Apple, especially if they were to be required to supply support for all the drivers of the various HW that MS has to deal with.
When Vista first came out MS did try to enforce via the EULA that only the more expensive copies could be used virtually. This was recently changed, probably as a result of poor Vista sales
Though, Leopard Server now allows virtualization, so some things have changed.
Quote:
Sorry for the longwinded off topic post.
Longwinded is fine, it's the lack of paragraphs that we get upset with.
Your post was equally as well stated. The thing is, I never said the iPhone was crap. It is far from it. It is however not the revolutionary device (my opinion) that many here (some of them blind followers) think. It is an evolutionary device. It was the logical next step. It builds a stable bridge from the desktop to a mobile device, and it does it well. Nokia products, are designed to be an extension of your office in your pocket. They perform this function quite well also. The iPhone and the Nokia devices are simply not comparable in my view as they serve different functions. I would not like to listen to music or watch a movie on my N82 even though I can, but I do like the VoIP, Skype, Fring, plethora of applications that I can use to make my working experience pretty decent. The same can be said of the iPhone. Movies, music, audio books, browsing, the iPhone wins clearly. But can I send biz cards, do vCard, vCal (not sure if they added this to be honest in 1.1.4), VoIP calls, decent quality pics, MMS (do not use often but when I need it, I really need it). How about saving docs for later emailing? These are the basics features in a so-called smartphone and the iPhone lacks them. Without even going down the 3G road again, this is also missing. To ignore this and continue the "iPhone = smartphone) is a lack of understanding. This shows in the European sales. Clearly they have a better understanding of what biz needs (well European needs) are as opposed to the US biz market.
OK, but as Kickaha was saying, my point is that Apple is in a pretty good position to add functionality as they feel it is needed, or let third party developers do so.
And the important thing is this: they can add functionality within the context of a carefully thought out, desktop derived OS and UI, so that that functionality is easy to access, use and integrate-- not just with the rest of the iPhone apps but with the larger world of OS X and its desktop apps, iTunes, and things like movie rentals that can move between devices.
So, again everything you say about the current iteration of the iPhone may somewhat true, but the real story is what Apple can do going forward.
It still seems to me that what Apple has is a small form factor computer, with all that implies in terms of rapid rollouts of OS updates, flexibility, depth of interoperability, consistency of UI and interactions across apps, etc. That underlying power is only going to become more evident as the horsepower of these things keeps increasing. The distinction between desktop and palmtop devices is going to be mostly a matter of UI, and Apple has arguably the best thought out UI of the breed, atop a mature, well supported and very powerful OS.
Nokia has an extended phone OS, originally designed to run on far more constrained hardware. At some point, that becomes a problem if what the market is demanding is tiny general purpose computers, where telephony is a feature.
The situation is analogous to if Adobe had been a maker of really good stand alone graphics appliances, running their very good application suite, in a world where stand alone graphics appliances are the only game in town, due to historical hardware constraints. Over time they've managed to allow third party apps on these appliances, to extend their usefulness, but basically these are single purpose machines which have been modified and extended to meet a gradually growing demand for more general purpose devices.
Then someone comes along and makes a personal computer. It doesn't do graphics as well as the Adobe kit, but it does a lot of other stuff, and is far more flexible and open ended in its underlying design philosophy. Still, a lot of people dismiss the newcomer, because they persist in thinking of all computing machines as being intrinsically graphics appliances, and Adobe has demonstrated mastery at that game.
So Adobe has core expertise in their field, and in this scenario let's figure they've been building pretty good hardware to run their stuff. But do you really want to bet on them carrying the day, when it comes time to compete with a actual computers that were designed as such from the beginning? Will they be able to work their way out of the collection of apps and UI bits that they've been calling an "operating system", and do it without breaking compatibility with all that came before? Do it fast enough to compete with a real OS?
Apple is a computer company. Nokia is a phone company. If the future belongs to computers that can make calls, is it easier for the computer company to figure out how to make telephony apps, or the phone company to figure out how to make computers?
You do not seem to get the difference between having a 3G connection and being connected for 3g applications. Here goes. If the phone is in standby and connected via 3G, it means that there is a 3G network available for a 3G application, i.e. VoIP. This drains the battery no more than a 2.5G connection. However, once the application is used, and data is passed, there is a higher drain on the battery. How do I know this? I have a 3G phone, and use it daily, so I can see how 3G does and does not affect battery life.
These blanket "kill the battery" statements such as yours and others are misleading at best and false in the worst case.'
Before you start offering expert advice via Apple talking points, get a 3G phone and do some practical tests yourself.
Are you some sort of ignoramus?
Originally Posted by Abster2core
But at what cost? For example, battery life. Will it be a problem? Is the attached article still relevant?
I asked a question based on supposedly expert knowledge. It wasn't my opinion. I don't know and didn't know the answer, that is why I threw it out there. Obviously you have a problem reading and understanding English.
Nokia has an extended phone OS, originally designed to run on far more constrained hardware. At some point, that becomes a problem if what the market is demanding is tiny general purpose computers, where telephony is a feature.
Apple is a computer company. Nokia is a phone company. If the future belongs to computers that can make calls, is it easier for the computer company to figure out how to make telephony apps, or the phone company to figure out how to make computers?
Great post. I agree with 99.99% of it except the final "figuring out". Both Nokia and Apple will simply buy the expertise that they need to get a jump start on the market. I would have assumed (I could be wrong), that Apple had done this. Surely they, would have gone to the #1 phone maker on the market and pouched some of their talent.
The next few months, will be interesting. Nokia will be putting forward a TS UI device with music store, while Apple will hopefully launch a true smartphone. Either way, get you pennies ready. All this fun will probably be expensive.
I asked a question based on supposedly expert knowledge. It wasn't my opinion. I don't know and didn't know the answer, that is why I threw it out there. Obviously you have a problem reading and understanding English.
The difference between your "article" and my facts are quite simple. I went to the source. In my capacity working for the DS, I can get the opportunities to meet with GSM operators, phone manufacturers and ask them questions on and off the record. I also have resources from my prior life in the GSM/software development arena. I showed them your article. It is probably in one of the stalls being used for toilet paper. They all came back with one baseline fact. The article is based on US phones, US networks with most likely US components derived by Motorola. 3G has been around in Europe for a bit longer and the networks are pretty well optimized for max performance.
How is my english now? Maybe comprehension is your problem.
Class in session. As I have stated several times throughout this thread and forum, I work for the US State Department but am currently living in Europe on assignment. Get a passport and travel before making a blanket assessment about someone. Anyway, I have had the advantage of working in the telecoms industry on the operator and software developer side (this was mentioned in this very thread). I will include pictures next time. I have also had the pleasure of using almost every smartphone/mobile phone device type since the middle 90's when Nokia came out with the original Communicator, Ericsson with the R380, various Psion devices, and so on. I would say this makes me more than "clever" but knowledgeable and able to speak with some confidence about a subject I am quite familiar with. What's your excuse?
It seems that anytime, anyone does not tow the "Apple, Apple uber alles", party line this person is either biased, Apple haters, stupid in some cases, etc.....
You work for the US State Department. As such, you feel that it entitles you to educate belittle and berate anybody that says even anything positive about Apples?
I would suggest that, like hell you do.
If you did work for the U.S. Department of State, not the US State Department as you erroneously called it, you wouldn't have made the last comment, or one of your previous diplomatic proclamations, "Apple produces it, Stevie Boy sells it, and the lemmings buy it."
The difference between your "article" and my facts are quite simple. I went to the source. In my capacity working for the DS, I can get the opportunities to meet with GSM operators, phone manufacturers and ask them questions on and off the record. I also have resources from my prior life in the GSM/software development arena. I showed them your article. It is probably in one of the stalls being used for toilet paper. They all came back with one baseline fact. The article is based on US phones, US networks with most likely US components derived by Motorola. 3G has been around in Europe for a bit longer and the networks are pretty well optimized for max performance.
How is my english now? Maybe comprehension is your problem.
I asked for an opinion on what seemed to be a highly intelligent review. I didn't expect anybody to lambaste me for making a query.
And to your explanation, I would suggest that it is an outright falsehood. You never showed it to anybody, like most things you pretend to do.
Class in session. As I have stated several times throughout this thread and forum, I work for the US State Department but am currently living in Europe on assignment. Get a passport and travel before making a blanket assessment about someone. Anyway, I have had the advantage of working in the telecoms industry on the operator and software developer side (this was mentioned in this very thread). I will include pictures next time. I have also had the pleasure of using almost every smartphone/mobile phone device type since the middle 90's when Nokia came out with the original Communicator, Ericsson with the R380, various Psion devices, and so on. I would say this makes me more than "clever" but knowledgeable and able to speak with some confidence about a subject I am quite familiar with. What's your excuse?
It seems that anytime, anyone does not tow the "Apple, Apple uber alles", party line this person is either biased, Apple haters, stupid in some cases, etc......
You work for the US State Department. As such, you feel that it entitles you to educate, belittle and berate anybody that says even anything positive about Apple?
I would suggest that, like hell you do.
If you did work for the U.S. Department of State, not the US State Department as you erroneously called it, you wouldn't have made the last comment, or one of your previous diplomatic proclamations, "Apple produces it, Stevie Boy sells it, and the lemmings buy it."
You work for the US State Department. As such, you feel that it entitles you to educate belittle and berate anybody that says even anything positive about Apples?
I would suggest that, like hell you do.
If you did work for the U.S. Department of State, not the US State Department as you erroneously called it, you wouldn't have made the last comment, or one of your previous diplomatic proclamations, "Apple produces it, Stevie Boy sells it, and the lemmings buy it."
Ah the sign of a losing argument, fall back to semantics. News flash, those of us that do work at State (one name for it that we insiders call it), or State Department, or Department of State, or DS (not to be confused with Diplomatic Security).
I think your hair is in a tizzy. it is the Apple Thought Police (yourself included) that scour these threads looking for anything not Apple friendly. Anything that does not proclaim allegiance to ze fazer-land will be meet by ze storm troopers in their Jack boots. As I have said on several occasions, but I will go slow for you, "I own several Apple products and am pleased with them", however I have the right no THINK DIFFERENT about them and can say so. If you do not like my posts, by all means hit the "Report Post" button and take it up with someone that cares.
With that being the case, I would suggest that you "foxtrot oscar" and stop wasting my time.
Ah the sign of a losing argument, fall back to semantics. News flash, those of us that do work at State (one name for it that we insiders call it), or State Department, or Department of State, or DS (not to be confused with Diplomatic Security).
I think your hair is in a tizzy. it is the Apple Thought Police (yourself included) that scour these threads looking for anything not Apple friendly. Anything that does not proclaim allegiance to ze fazer-land will be meet by ze storm troopers in their Jack boots. As I have said on several occasions, but I will go slow for you, "I own several Apple products and am pleased with them", however I have the right no THINK DIFFERENT about them and can say so. If you do not like my posts, by all means hit the "Report Post" button and take it up with someone that cares.
With that being the case, I would suggest that you "foxtrot oscar" and stop wasting my time.
Another sign of losing an argument is to insult, impugn and demean those that disagree with you, which you have done repeatedly in this thread.
You say you cite facts, but I don't remember you providing any information to corroborate your facts. If the things you say are true, then it should be easy to provide source references. It's unreasonable for you to expect us to accept what you say if you're unwilling to cite specific references. Doubly so if you repeatedly insult people that don't readily accept what you say just because you say so.
Another sign of losing an argument is to insult, impugn and demean those that disagree with you, which you have done repeatedly in this thread.
You say you cite facts, but I don't remember you providing any information to corroborate your facts. If the things you say are true, then it should be easy to provide a source reference.
******Are you some sort of ignoramus?
Originally Posted by Abster2core*******
Anything insulting in his direction was a result of this. I may have my points of view and God knows everyone else has theirs. So be it. The prior insults and name calling were directed towards TBaggins by several others in this particular thread. So I think you might be a bit mistaken there. Are you talking about the "FACTS" that the iPhone can not perform some of the most basic telephony tasks? Those facts? Do you mean real world 3G vs. EGDE battery life test? Or me sending my friends the links to the posted article? Do you mean the failing European iPhone sales figures?Which facts are you talking about?
Another sign of losing an argument is to insult, impugn and demean those that disagree with you, which you have done repeatedly in this thread.
You say you cite facts, but I don't remember you providing any information to corroborate your facts. If the things you say are true, then it should be easy to provide source references. It's unreasonable for you to expect us to accept what you say if you're unwilling to cite specific references. Doubly so if you repeatedly insult people that don't readily accept what you say just because you say so.
You seem to think that anything I say or you actually matters. If you do not like what I say or do not want to believe it, don't. I posted links to the Nokia site showing their smartphone product listing. As far as I know this was the only link that I stated as being factual. By all means, please clue me in.
Anything insulting in his direction was a result of this.
"He started it first" is not an excuse. As far as I'm concerned, it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Quote:
Which facts are you talking about?
How about you be specific in why the Anand article was "toilet paper"? At least it was a cited reference, more than I've ever seen you cite in any discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby
You seem to think that anything I say or you actually matters. If you do not like what I say or do not want to believe it, don't. I posted links to the Nokia site showing their smartphone product listing. As far as I know this was the only link that I stated as being factual. By all means, please clue me in.
I didn't say that you're lying, but it's more believable if you can cite a reference.
"He started it first" is not an excuse. As far as I'm concerned, it's the pot calling the kettle black.
How about you be specific in why the Anand article was "toilet paper"? At least it was a cited reference, more than I've ever seen you cite in any discussion.
I didn't say that you're lying, but it's more believable if you can cite a reference.
*********This is what I said exactly ***********
#####It is probably in one of the stalls being used for toilet paper. They all came back with one baseline fact. The article is based on US phones, US networks with most likely US components derived by Motorola. 3G has been around in Europe for a bit longer and the networks are pretty well optimized for max performance.######
Note the word, "probably", and note the rest of the statement. Where they, the resources I know at Nokia and SE, thought the article was crap. My only opinion came in when referring to the restroom toilet facilities. Would going there taking a picture with a printed copy of the article on the floor qualify as proof?
Note the word, "probably", and note the rest of the statement. Where they, the resources I know at Nokia and SE, thought the article was crap. My only opinion came in when referring to the restroom toilet facilities. Would going there taking a picture with a printed copy of the article on the floor qualify as proof?
No, I just wanted to better understand *why* they thought it was crap, not what they did with it. As you said before, opinions are usually worthless. I've not seen that kind of battery life comparison done anywhere else, but then, I really don't spend much time thinking about mobile phone circuitry.
No, I just wanted to better understand *why* they thought it was crap, not what they did with it. As you said before, opinions are usually worthless. I've not seen that kind of battery life comparison done anywhere else, but then, I really don't spend much time thinking about mobile phone circuitry.
The guys I spoke with were network designers, and one was a phone designer/engineer (he prefers to consider himself an artist)
Anyway, they all said the test was aimed at US phones, with US networks were as Asian, European, and Mid Eastern 3G networks were more or less the same. Much of this was way over my head, but I understood some of it. In the end, they said that if a Nokia with a 1050 mAh 3.7v battery can run a phone all day with 3G, the iPhone should be able to last all day as well. They felt the lack of 3G was marketing hype because AT&T didn't have the network at the time and Apple wanted the phone out there.
Who knows?
By the way, as an aside. I have written several times that I like your post as they tend to be insightful. I have no truck against you or anyone here, however until Lundy or someone else in authority says that I can not express my opinions I will continue. I may be passionate about what I believe but I can 99.9999999999999999999999999% assure you that anything I say here, I have either lived it, seen it, will do it, etc.... I rarely will jump into a conversation without knowing what I am talking about.
One Apple iPhone owner has posted to YouTube a video shootout that pits an iPhone running on a 2.5G EDGE network against one rigged with 3G HSDPA access in a simulated speed test.
The mock 3G iPhone was connected via WiFi to an iMac whose internet connection was supplied with a HSDPA modem and then shared, while the traditional 2.5G iPhone was run on a standard overseas EDGE wireless network.
Based on the test results, which are largely theoretical given fluctuations in mobile wireless speeds from region to region and provider to provider, the 3G iPhone loaded the same web page as the 2.5G iPhone in nearly half the time.
This is not accurate. Ad-Hoc networking uses 802.11b as the transmission standard. 802.11b has a maximum raw data rate of 11 Mbit/s and uses the same CSMA/CA media access method defined in the original standard. Due to the CSMA/CA protocol overhead, in practice the maximum 802.11b throughput that an application can achieve is about 5.9 Mbit/s using TCP and 7.1 Mbit/s using UDP. Industry sources state that 3G can be expected to provide 384 Kbps at or below pedestrian speeds, but only 128 Kbps in a moving car. This is an extreme differnce from what was displayed in this video. Nice try but next time check your facts.... The 3G would be waaay faster than the other.
Comments
Sounds like you are questioning those home made macs for sale.
That was the last one from my mind. I'm talking amore about the AI articles where Apple is accused of using technology that someone else patented and the articles where a new Apple patent comes up that has been used by others for some time.? AU articles regarding patents
If Apple sues "Pshystar" or cease and desist letters they will look like the bad guy, but I don't think Apple is worried about it right now. Despite Psystar's sketchy start their machines are still questionable.
They send you the $129 copy of Leopard unopened?because you need an OSx86 version?which I think they sell you for $150. So if you need to reinstall Leopard you have to pull out the HDD and ship it to them. They then have access to al your files so you could save a few bucks on a garage-built machine that doesn't have the more optimized drivers and where getting the device fixed under warranty will be a crap shoot.
Plus, you can't setup BootCamp, use the Leopard Install DIsc, or update the OS and a good deal of the Apps. It also doesn't come with any iLife apps. My point is, I don't think Apple is worried about them; The vast other home built OSx86 projects will certainly trump what Psystar can sell. SWIM has been using a Dell as home server running OS X for a couple years now.It works great!
I think they realized that litigation may stall them but not solve the larger problem. I suspect that they may be working with Intel, or perhaps with P.A. Semi now, to use HW authentication to make the clones harder to crack.
Additionally, Microsoft does not prevent anyone from using bootcamp and VMware and other sorts of dual boot software. I would think that this type freedom to add the Mac OS to another machine might appeal to Apple's freeform/ease of use interface style.
But MS makes money from their OS. They don't produce desktop hardware (save for their mice). Apple bread and butter is the HW so virtual OS X isn't an attractive option to Apple, especially if they were to be required to supply support for all the drivers of the various HW that MS has to deal with.
When Vista first came out MS did try to enforce via the EULA that only the more expensive copies could be used virtually. This was recently changed, probably as a result of poor Vista sales
Though, Leopard Server now allows virtualization, so some things have changed.
Sorry for the longwinded off topic post.
Longwinded is fine, it's the lack of paragraphs that we get upset with.
Hi kickaha,
Your post was equally as well stated. The thing is, I never said the iPhone was crap. It is far from it. It is however not the revolutionary device (my opinion) that many here (some of them blind followers) think. It is an evolutionary device. It was the logical next step. It builds a stable bridge from the desktop to a mobile device, and it does it well. Nokia products, are designed to be an extension of your office in your pocket. They perform this function quite well also. The iPhone and the Nokia devices are simply not comparable in my view as they serve different functions. I would not like to listen to music or watch a movie on my N82 even though I can, but I do like the VoIP, Skype, Fring, plethora of applications that I can use to make my working experience pretty decent. The same can be said of the iPhone. Movies, music, audio books, browsing, the iPhone wins clearly. But can I send biz cards, do vCard, vCal (not sure if they added this to be honest in 1.1.4), VoIP calls, decent quality pics, MMS (do not use often but when I need it, I really need it). How about saving docs for later emailing? These are the basics features in a so-called smartphone and the iPhone lacks them. Without even going down the 3G road again, this is also missing. To ignore this and continue the "iPhone = smartphone) is a lack of understanding. This shows in the European sales. Clearly they have a better understanding of what biz needs (well European needs) are as opposed to the US biz market.
OK, but as Kickaha was saying, my point is that Apple is in a pretty good position to add functionality as they feel it is needed, or let third party developers do so.
And the important thing is this: they can add functionality within the context of a carefully thought out, desktop derived OS and UI, so that that functionality is easy to access, use and integrate-- not just with the rest of the iPhone apps but with the larger world of OS X and its desktop apps, iTunes, and things like movie rentals that can move between devices.
So, again everything you say about the current iteration of the iPhone may somewhat true, but the real story is what Apple can do going forward.
It still seems to me that what Apple has is a small form factor computer, with all that implies in terms of rapid rollouts of OS updates, flexibility, depth of interoperability, consistency of UI and interactions across apps, etc. That underlying power is only going to become more evident as the horsepower of these things keeps increasing. The distinction between desktop and palmtop devices is going to be mostly a matter of UI, and Apple has arguably the best thought out UI of the breed, atop a mature, well supported and very powerful OS.
Nokia has an extended phone OS, originally designed to run on far more constrained hardware. At some point, that becomes a problem if what the market is demanding is tiny general purpose computers, where telephony is a feature.
The situation is analogous to if Adobe had been a maker of really good stand alone graphics appliances, running their very good application suite, in a world where stand alone graphics appliances are the only game in town, due to historical hardware constraints. Over time they've managed to allow third party apps on these appliances, to extend their usefulness, but basically these are single purpose machines which have been modified and extended to meet a gradually growing demand for more general purpose devices.
Then someone comes along and makes a personal computer. It doesn't do graphics as well as the Adobe kit, but it does a lot of other stuff, and is far more flexible and open ended in its underlying design philosophy. Still, a lot of people dismiss the newcomer, because they persist in thinking of all computing machines as being intrinsically graphics appliances, and Adobe has demonstrated mastery at that game.
So Adobe has core expertise in their field, and in this scenario let's figure they've been building pretty good hardware to run their stuff. But do you really want to bet on them carrying the day, when it comes time to compete with a actual computers that were designed as such from the beginning? Will they be able to work their way out of the collection of apps and UI bits that they've been calling an "operating system", and do it without breaking compatibility with all that came before? Do it fast enough to compete with a real OS?
Apple is a computer company. Nokia is a phone company. If the future belongs to computers that can make calls, is it easier for the computer company to figure out how to make telephony apps, or the phone company to figure out how to make computers?
You do not seem to get the difference between having a 3G connection and being connected for 3g applications. Here goes. If the phone is in standby and connected via 3G, it means that there is a 3G network available for a 3G application, i.e. VoIP. This drains the battery no more than a 2.5G connection. However, once the application is used, and data is passed, there is a higher drain on the battery. How do I know this? I have a 3G phone, and use it daily, so I can see how 3G does and does not affect battery life.
These blanket "kill the battery" statements such as yours and others are misleading at best and false in the worst case.'
Before you start offering expert advice via Apple talking points, get a 3G phone and do some practical tests yourself.
Are you some sort of ignoramus?
Originally Posted by Abster2core
But at what cost? For example, battery life. Will it be a problem? Is the attached article still relevant?
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3036
I asked a question based on supposedly expert knowledge. It wasn't my opinion. I don't know and didn't know the answer, that is why I threw it out there. Obviously you have a problem reading and understanding English.
Nokia has an extended phone OS, originally designed to run on far more constrained hardware. At some point, that becomes a problem if what the market is demanding is tiny general purpose computers, where telephony is a feature.
Apple is a computer company. Nokia is a phone company. If the future belongs to computers that can make calls, is it easier for the computer company to figure out how to make telephony apps, or the phone company to figure out how to make computers?
Great post. I agree with 99.99% of it except the final "figuring out". Both Nokia and Apple will simply buy the expertise that they need to get a jump start on the market. I would have assumed (I could be wrong), that Apple had done this. Surely they, would have gone to the #1 phone maker on the market and pouched some of their talent.
The next few months, will be interesting. Nokia will be putting forward a TS UI device with music store, while Apple will hopefully launch a true smartphone. Either way, get you pennies ready. All this fun will probably be expensive.
Are you some sort of ignoramus?
Originally Posted by Abster2core
But at what cost? For example, battery life. Will it be a problem? Is the attached article still relevant?
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3036
I asked a question based on supposedly expert knowledge. It wasn't my opinion. I don't know and didn't know the answer, that is why I threw it out there. Obviously you have a problem reading and understanding English.
The difference between your "article" and my facts are quite simple. I went to the source. In my capacity working for the DS, I can get the opportunities to meet with GSM operators, phone manufacturers and ask them questions on and off the record. I also have resources from my prior life in the GSM/software development arena. I showed them your article. It is probably in one of the stalls being used for toilet paper. They all came back with one baseline fact. The article is based on US phones, US networks with most likely US components derived by Motorola. 3G has been around in Europe for a bit longer and the networks are pretty well optimized for max performance.
How is my english now? Maybe comprehension is your problem.
I am here to educate you.
Class in session. As I have stated several times throughout this thread and forum, I work for the US State Department but am currently living in Europe on assignment. Get a passport and travel before making a blanket assessment about someone. Anyway, I have had the advantage of working in the telecoms industry on the operator and software developer side (this was mentioned in this very thread). I will include pictures next time. I have also had the pleasure of using almost every smartphone/mobile phone device type since the middle 90's when Nokia came out with the original Communicator, Ericsson with the R380, various Psion devices, and so on. I would say this makes me more than "clever" but knowledgeable and able to speak with some confidence about a subject I am quite familiar with. What's your excuse?
It seems that anytime, anyone does not tow the "Apple, Apple uber alles", party line this person is either biased, Apple haters, stupid in some cases, etc.....
You work for the US State Department. As such, you feel that it entitles you to educate belittle and berate anybody that says even anything positive about Apples?
I would suggest that, like hell you do.
If you did work for the U.S. Department of State, not the US State Department as you erroneously called it, you wouldn't have made the last comment, or one of your previous diplomatic proclamations, "Apple produces it, Stevie Boy sells it, and the lemmings buy it."
The difference between your "article" and my facts are quite simple. I went to the source. In my capacity working for the DS, I can get the opportunities to meet with GSM operators, phone manufacturers and ask them questions on and off the record. I also have resources from my prior life in the GSM/software development arena. I showed them your article. It is probably in one of the stalls being used for toilet paper. They all came back with one baseline fact. The article is based on US phones, US networks with most likely US components derived by Motorola. 3G has been around in Europe for a bit longer and the networks are pretty well optimized for max performance.
How is my english now? Maybe comprehension is your problem.
I asked for an opinion on what seemed to be a highly intelligent review. I didn't expect anybody to lambaste me for making a query.
And to your explanation, I would suggest that it is an outright falsehood. You never showed it to anybody, like most things you pretend to do.
I am here to educate you.
Class in session. As I have stated several times throughout this thread and forum, I work for the US State Department but am currently living in Europe on assignment. Get a passport and travel before making a blanket assessment about someone. Anyway, I have had the advantage of working in the telecoms industry on the operator and software developer side (this was mentioned in this very thread). I will include pictures next time. I have also had the pleasure of using almost every smartphone/mobile phone device type since the middle 90's when Nokia came out with the original Communicator, Ericsson with the R380, various Psion devices, and so on. I would say this makes me more than "clever" but knowledgeable and able to speak with some confidence about a subject I am quite familiar with. What's your excuse?
It seems that anytime, anyone does not tow the "Apple, Apple uber alles", party line this person is either biased, Apple haters, stupid in some cases, etc......
You work for the US State Department. As such, you feel that it entitles you to educate, belittle and berate anybody that says even anything positive about Apple?
I would suggest that, like hell you do.
If you did work for the U.S. Department of State, not the US State Department as you erroneously called it, you wouldn't have made the last comment, or one of your previous diplomatic proclamations, "Apple produces it, Stevie Boy sells it, and the lemmings buy it."
You work for the US State Department. As such, you feel that it entitles you to educate belittle and berate anybody that says even anything positive about Apples?
I would suggest that, like hell you do.
If you did work for the U.S. Department of State, not the US State Department as you erroneously called it, you wouldn't have made the last comment, or one of your previous diplomatic proclamations, "Apple produces it, Stevie Boy sells it, and the lemmings buy it."
Ah the sign of a losing argument, fall back to semantics. News flash, those of us that do work at State (one name for it that we insiders call it), or State Department, or Department of State, or DS (not to be confused with Diplomatic Security).
I think your hair is in a tizzy. it is the Apple Thought Police (yourself included) that scour these threads looking for anything not Apple friendly. Anything that does not proclaim allegiance to ze fazer-land will be meet by ze storm troopers in their Jack boots. As I have said on several occasions, but I will go slow for you, "I own several Apple products and am pleased with them", however I have the right no THINK DIFFERENT about them and can say so. If you do not like my posts, by all means hit the "Report Post" button and take it up with someone that cares.
With that being the case, I would suggest that you "foxtrot oscar" and stop wasting my time.
I asked for an opinion on what seemed to be a highly intelligent review. I didn't expect anybody to lambaste me for making a query.
And to your explanation, I would suggest that it is an outright falsehood. You never showed it to anybody, like most things you pretend to do.
There is this new thing as Prez Bush called it. The Internets... They have this other thing called email. Forward the link. Ever hear of that?
Ah the sign of a losing argument, fall back to semantics. News flash, those of us that do work at State (one name for it that we insiders call it), or State Department, or Department of State, or DS (not to be confused with Diplomatic Security).
I think your hair is in a tizzy. it is the Apple Thought Police (yourself included) that scour these threads looking for anything not Apple friendly. Anything that does not proclaim allegiance to ze fazer-land will be meet by ze storm troopers in their Jack boots. As I have said on several occasions, but I will go slow for you, "I own several Apple products and am pleased with them", however I have the right no THINK DIFFERENT about them and can say so. If you do not like my posts, by all means hit the "Report Post" button and take it up with someone that cares.
With that being the case, I would suggest that you "foxtrot oscar" and stop wasting my time.
Another sign of losing an argument is to insult, impugn and demean those that disagree with you, which you have done repeatedly in this thread.
You say you cite facts, but I don't remember you providing any information to corroborate your facts. If the things you say are true, then it should be easy to provide source references. It's unreasonable for you to expect us to accept what you say if you're unwilling to cite specific references. Doubly so if you repeatedly insult people that don't readily accept what you say just because you say so.
There is this new thing as Prez Bush called it. The Internets... They have this other thing called email. Forward the link. Ever hear of that?
Then you shouldn't have a problem referencing your experts opinion in full and its source.
And if there is a lemming, you fit the bill conclusively.
Another sign of losing an argument is to insult, impugn and demean those that disagree with you, which you have done repeatedly in this thread.
You say you cite facts, but I don't remember you providing any information to corroborate your facts. If the things you say are true, then it should be easy to provide a source reference.
******Are you some sort of ignoramus?
Originally Posted by Abster2core*******
Anything insulting in his direction was a result of this. I may have my points of view and God knows everyone else has theirs. So be it. The prior insults and name calling were directed towards TBaggins by several others in this particular thread. So I think you might be a bit mistaken there. Are you talking about the "FACTS" that the iPhone can not perform some of the most basic telephony tasks? Those facts? Do you mean real world 3G vs. EGDE battery life test? Or me sending my friends the links to the posted article? Do you mean the failing European iPhone sales figures?Which facts are you talking about?
Another sign of losing an argument is to insult, impugn and demean those that disagree with you, which you have done repeatedly in this thread.
You say you cite facts, but I don't remember you providing any information to corroborate your facts. If the things you say are true, then it should be easy to provide source references. It's unreasonable for you to expect us to accept what you say if you're unwilling to cite specific references. Doubly so if you repeatedly insult people that don't readily accept what you say just because you say so.
You seem to think that anything I say or you actually matters. If you do not like what I say or do not want to believe it, don't. I posted links to the Nokia site showing their smartphone product listing. As far as I know this was the only link that I stated as being factual. By all means, please clue me in.
Anything insulting in his direction was a result of this.
"He started it first" is not an excuse. As far as I'm concerned, it's the pot calling the kettle black.
Which facts are you talking about?
How about you be specific in why the Anand article was "toilet paper"? At least it was a cited reference, more than I've ever seen you cite in any discussion.
You seem to think that anything I say or you actually matters. If you do not like what I say or do not want to believe it, don't. I posted links to the Nokia site showing their smartphone product listing. As far as I know this was the only link that I stated as being factual. By all means, please clue me in.
I didn't say that you're lying, but it's more believable if you can cite a reference.
All That Typing Down The Drain
Just Because You Called A Name.
"He started it first" is not an excuse. As far as I'm concerned, it's the pot calling the kettle black.
How about you be specific in why the Anand article was "toilet paper"? At least it was a cited reference, more than I've ever seen you cite in any discussion.
I didn't say that you're lying, but it's more believable if you can cite a reference.
*********This is what I said exactly ***********
#####It is probably in one of the stalls being used for toilet paper. They all came back with one baseline fact. The article is based on US phones, US networks with most likely US components derived by Motorola. 3G has been around in Europe for a bit longer and the networks are pretty well optimized for max performance.######
Note the word, "probably", and note the rest of the statement. Where they, the resources I know at Nokia and SE, thought the article was crap. My only opinion came in when referring to the restroom toilet facilities. Would going there taking a picture with a printed copy of the article on the floor qualify as proof?
Note the word, "probably", and note the rest of the statement. Where they, the resources I know at Nokia and SE, thought the article was crap. My only opinion came in when referring to the restroom toilet facilities. Would going there taking a picture with a printed copy of the article on the floor qualify as proof?
No, I just wanted to better understand *why* they thought it was crap, not what they did with it. As you said before, opinions are usually worthless. I've not seen that kind of battery life comparison done anywhere else, but then, I really don't spend much time thinking about mobile phone circuitry.
No, I just wanted to better understand *why* they thought it was crap, not what they did with it. As you said before, opinions are usually worthless. I've not seen that kind of battery life comparison done anywhere else, but then, I really don't spend much time thinking about mobile phone circuitry.
The guys I spoke with were network designers, and one was a phone designer/engineer (he prefers to consider himself an artist)
Anyway, they all said the test was aimed at US phones, with US networks were as Asian, European, and Mid Eastern 3G networks were more or less the same. Much of this was way over my head, but I understood some of it. In the end, they said that if a Nokia with a 1050 mAh 3.7v battery can run a phone all day with 3G, the iPhone should be able to last all day as well. They felt the lack of 3G was marketing hype because AT&T didn't have the network at the time and Apple wanted the phone out there.
Who knows?
By the way, as an aside. I have written several times that I like your post as they tend to be insightful. I have no truck against you or anyone here, however until Lundy or someone else in authority says that I can not express my opinions I will continue. I may be passionate about what I believe but I can 99.9999999999999999999999999% assure you that anything I say here, I have either lived it, seen it, will do it, etc.... I rarely will jump into a conversation without knowing what I am talking about.
One Apple iPhone owner has posted to YouTube a video shootout that pits an iPhone running on a 2.5G EDGE network against one rigged with 3G HSDPA access in a simulated speed test.
The mock 3G iPhone was connected via WiFi to an iMac whose internet connection was supplied with a HSDPA modem and then shared, while the traditional 2.5G iPhone was run on a standard overseas EDGE wireless network.
Based on the test results, which are largely theoretical given fluctuations in mobile wireless speeds from region to region and provider to provider, the 3G iPhone loaded the same web page as the 2.5G iPhone in nearly half the time.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
This is not accurate. Ad-Hoc networking uses 802.11b as the transmission standard. 802.11b has a maximum raw data rate of 11 Mbit/s and uses the same CSMA/CA media access method defined in the original standard. Due to the CSMA/CA protocol overhead, in practice the maximum 802.11b throughput that an application can achieve is about 5.9 Mbit/s using TCP and 7.1 Mbit/s using UDP. Industry sources state that 3G can be expected to provide 384 Kbps at or below pedestrian speeds, but only 128 Kbps in a moving car. This is an extreme differnce from what was displayed in this video. Nice try but next time check your facts.... The 3G would be waaay faster than the other.