I thought the article proved that the ANTENNA section was not faulty. Where did this leap that the hardware is not faulty come from? Oh, never mind. AI reporting again.
I am not sure with what you mean by 3G subscribers. When I get my contract here in Finland, 3G is simply part of it. Do you mean dedicated bandwidth? I can use all the 3G I want but I can also ask for dedicated 1 or 2 meg and pay for this dedicated bandwidth.
Oh, 45 million subscibers is quite a bit in any study.
But it looks as though those numbers are not European numbers. I doubt if Europe has over 910 million cell subscribers. They only have about half that number of people.
Saw a friend's iPhone 3G today in the Los Angeles area, Valencia to be specific. The 3G worked great. She lives in Burbank and has a full 3G signal at home too. She primarily uses the phone with Edge (smart) to conserve battery and flips on 3G whenever needed.
The phone was currently running 2.0.1. I told her to update the phone to 2.0.2. Even with 2.0.1, flipping on 3G only took a few seconds to acquire the 3G network. I downloaded a few webpages and compared it to my original iPhone. 3G wasn't blazing fast, but it was noticibly faster than Edge. Depending on the network and sites you are browsing, yes, it was about 2x faster than Edge.
The phone works as advertised. I think the big complainers bought the phone without checking AT&T's 3G network coverage, and then found out they are in an area with limited coverage and complain instead of returning the phone.
Wow... I didn't know that there was a Birmingham in the US, seriously (o_O)
The 8525 is UMTS (3G), the iPhone 3G is actually 3.5G (HSDPA), but I guess "iPhone three point five gee" or "iPhone three and a half gee" were a little bit too long for marketing reasons :-P
But it looks as though those numbers are not European numbers. I doubt if Europe has over 910 million cell subscribers. They only have about half that number of people.
I know. I started to get scared. I was thinking there were some night people or something hidden that I did not know about.
Maybe you can explain it to me. When anyone in Europe as far as I know gets a newer phone, 3G is automatically a part of it. They can access 3G speeds. Is this study talking about this or the fact that they are purchasing QoS and paying for dedicated bandwidth?
The story here though, is that the percentage has barely changed. It's pretty low, which is what I've been trying to get across for a while now. It's also why I've thought that 3G isn't really all that important in Europe, or most anywhere yet, though some here have insisted that it is.
Just because a service is available doesn't mean that larger percentages of people will get it.
Sorry melgross, have to jump in here and I might even answer my question that I just put to you. In our embassy we have some people that are out all day and need to use data to check their emails. We simply have unlimited data activated on their subscription. The phone was already capable of 3G data services, just that there is now a dedicated service behind it. They could use a sort of per usage type of well, usage which is expensive or they can now have unlimited data usage. If the study was looking at my first description then it is wrong as here in Finland probably the rest of Europe 3G is already active without a subscription.
My problem is not the speed of 3G. It is fast when you can get it. My basic problem is that as a phone the iphone doesn't work very well. At least in the center of Los Angeles. There are many dead zones. When you do make a call the quality is poor and the call cannot be maintained if you are driving beyond a few minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
Saw a friend's iPhone 3G today in the Los Angeles area, Valencia to be specific. The 3G worked great. She lives in Burbank and has a full 3G signal at home too. She primarily uses the phone with Edge (smart) to conserve battery and flips on 3G whenever needed.
The phone was currently running 2.0.1. I told her to update the phone to 2.0.2. Even with 2.0.1, flipping on 3G only took a few seconds to acquire the 3G network. I downloaded a few webpages and compared it to my original iPhone. 3G wasn't blazing fast, but it was noticibly faster than Edge. Depending on the network and sites you are browsing, yes, it was about 2x faster than Edge.
The phone works as advertised. I think the big complainers bought the phone without checking AT&T's 3G network coverage, and then found out they are in an area with limited coverage and complain instead of returning the phone.
The tests tell us that under laboratory conditions, the Phone works to spec. It does not tell us whether the iPhone works out in the real world.
The iPhone may very well be working perfectly in the real world. It may very well be a lemon. This test doesn't address the real world situations people are complaining about.
A phone's physical design encourages people to hold it in their hands a certain way, and hold it a certain distance from their head. With a badly designed phone, these simple actions might block the signal. That would be a major problem that would NOT show up under the type of standard testing conditions described.
I'm not saying their is a problem with the iPhone 3G. I'm just saying laboratory tests don't always tell us about real world performance.
Exactly! Though I haven't seen the full specifications of the laboratory test setup there are the following factors to consider: the HEAD and the HAND:
HEAD: From what one can see on the pictures in the swedish newspaper. The iPhone is operated in free-space during the test. If this was really the case this is the first weak point in the study. I expect that, because the iphone shows pretty high SAR for its size and having the antenna in the lower part. (advantage of that antenna location usally is that the SAR is pretty low when tested on the head) With a good antenna/low-SAR design I would expect one could a factor of 10 reduction in SAR. (remember all energy you lose/absorb in the users head wont be available in the communication channel)
HAND: How are you holding your phone? With a low loss dielectric holder or your hand which covers the whole antenna part with your palm. (this is the disadvantage of having an antenna at the lower end of the phone). Quick test: It make a difference of 2 bars on my iPhone 3G when I cover the lower part of the phone with my hand or not!
I went to the Apple store today- the 4th time in a week- with a problem of email not being fetched automatically. They restored my phone 3 times and each time it did not recognize that the phone had been restored and asked if I wanted to continue the restore which the Genius did 3 times. Finally they took my Macbook, turned it upside down, removed the battery and held the power button in for 30 seconds. They then activated my iphone as a new phone rather then a restore. That worked but they were unable to sync my music and photos so they uninstalled iTunes and then reinstalled it, then re-synced my phone and now I have music and pictures but the email still will not work. When they handed my Macbook back to me, there was a large scratch on the top cover, from where they had turned in over to remove the battery. Found out then that the employee that did this was not a genius just a helpful employee, who did the damage. They were going to replace my Macbook until they found out it was a 2.2 previous generation not the current 2.4. I then offered to pay the difference between my Macbook and a new Macbook Pro but the manager decided to order a new case for my Macbook meaning I will be without it for a while. I still want to pay the difference and get an undamaged computer so I am hoping for a positive outcome. I asked about returning the iPhone and was informed that only ATT has a 30 day return policy not Apple who has a 14 day return policy on all equipment. Apple stated I could terminate my ATT contract but could not return iPhone as the 14 days were up. I thought Apple was customer oriented but I am sorely disappointed.
1. The report only concludes that the antenna isn't at fault. It isn't that hard to design an antenna, so we can probably assume that Apple got that part right.
2. It says nothing about the capability, sensitivity, or build quality of the phone's radio, which is what was speculated to be causing the problem in the first place.
3. They only tested at 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz. AT&T in the US uses both 1900 MHz and 850 MHz. 850 MHz, to be used properly, requires an antenna twice as long as one tuned to 1900 MHz (though an antenna designed for 850 should work fine for 1900). So if they didn't test at 850 MHz, we just don't know for sure how well it is going to perform on AT&T's network.
4. The chart showing sensitivity lists the units as deciBels (which is normal for signal reception). But deciBels are logarithmic, so a difference of 2dB is actually significant. When taken into consideration that a difference of 3dB is an approximate doubling of signal power, a 2dB difference actually can mean a difference between picking up and not picking up a signal under some circumstances.
5. Given that some users are having problems, while others aren't, tends to indicate that the problem probably isn't a fundamental design flaw. It's more likely found in the implementation in a given device.
For AppleInsider to extrapolate that the iPhone 3G doesn't suffer from faulty hardware is a bit of a stretch from the results of an antenna test.
1. The report only concludes that the antenna isn't at fault. It isn't that hard to design an antenna, so we can probably assume that Apple got that part right.
2. It says nothing about the capability, sensitivity, or build quality of the phone's radio, which is what was speculated to be causing the problem in the first place.
3. They only tested at 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz. AT&T in the US uses both 1900 MHz and 850 MHz. 850 MHz, to be used properly, requires an antenna twice as long as one tuned to 1900 MHz (though an antenna designed for 850 should work fine for 1900). So if they didn't test at 850 MHz, we just don't know for sure how well it is going to perform on AT&T's network.
4. The chart showing sensitivity lists the units as deciBels (which is normal for signal reception). But deciBels are logarithmic, so a difference of 2dB is actually significant. When taken into consideration that a difference of 3dB is an approximate doubling of signal power, a 2dB difference actually can mean a difference between picking up and not picking up a signal under some circumstances.
5. Given that some users are having problems, while others aren't, tends to indicate that the problem probably isn't a fundamental design flaw. It's more likely found in the implementation in a given device.
For AppleInsider to extrapolate that the iPhone 3G doesn't suffer from faulty hardware is a bit of a stretch from the results of an antenna test.
You are my hero. Would you agree that more testing should have been done in different environments to determine a baseline performance standard across all frequencies.
I am not sure with what you mean by 3G subscribers. When I get my contract here in Finland, 3G is simply part of it. Do you mean dedicated bandwidth? I can use all the 3G I want but I can also ask for dedicated 1 or 2 meg and pay for this dedicated bandwidth.
Oh, 45 million subscibers is quite a bit in any study.
"The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers (in Europe) at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted."
"The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers (in Europe) at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted."
Just so I know how to respond to you in the future, were you sort of speaking in a condescending tone? I do not want to be accused of jumping on your for no reason. I asked my question because the study did not make sense as 3G is included in ALL phone subscriptions. You can request a specific speed (subscription as well), or simply pay as you use. If my question was too hard for you then next time just ignore it.
Just so I know how to respond to you in the future, were you sort of speaking in a condescending tone? I do not want to be accused of jumping on your for no reason. I asked my question because the study did not make sense as 3G is included in ALL phone subscriptions. You can request a specific speed (subscription as well), or simply pay as you use. If my question was too hard for you then next time just ignore it.
I apologize if you so think so.
But to which of the two (actually only one) studies I referenced were you referring?
"European 3G subscriber count reaches 100 million
Market research firm Informa Telecoms has released a report that says the number of 3G subscribers in Europe has reached and surpassed the 100 millionth mark.
The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted." http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/
My involvement as a researcher and a creature of habit, I tend to support my statements/positioning with accompanying references. And, I expect similar action in response. I also explore the links to ensure accuracy and try to acknowledge my errors in kind.
Just for clarification, my initial comment that started this all, i.e., "AT&T is in the build stage. Actually one of the reasons why Apple didn't jump into 3G in the first place. (Interesting, but as of Dec 27, there were only 45 million 3G subscribers in Europe.)" was, as I later acknowledge, in error. The study report was for April 2, approximately 3 months before the iPhone was introduced.
As such, my original declaration was correct, the supported date was wrong.
But to which of the two (actually only one) studies I referenced were you referring?
"European 3G subscriber count reaches 100 million
Market research firm Informa Telecoms has released a report that says the number of 3G subscribers in Europe has reached and surpassed the 100 millionth mark.
The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted." http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/
My involvement as a researcher and a creature of habit, I tend to support my statements/positioning with accompanying references. And, I expect similar action in response. I also explore the links to ensure accuracy and try to acknowledge my errors in kind.
Just for clarification, my initial comment that started this all, i.e., "AT&T is in the build stage. Actually one of the reasons why Apple didn't jump into 3G in the first place. (Interesting, but as of Dec 27, there were only 45 million 3G subscribers in Europe.)" was, as I later acknowledge, in error. The study report was for April 2, approximately 3 months before the iPhone was introduced.
As such, my original declaration was correct, the supported date was wrong.
Hell, now I am confused. I think it was the data compiled that confused me. I was basing this solely on my own experiences living here in Finland, and Europe in general. Many to most people have no idea that they are using 3G at all even if they check their email or surf the web for just a min to check something. I was wondering where the "subscription" concept came in when all sim cards are 3G enabled in the first place. Wouldn't you have to actually count sim cards issued rather than some other number?
I'm just throwing it out. I am not really sure what they used to say is or is not a subscription.
I know. I started to get scared. I was thinking there were some night people or something hidden that I did not know about.
Maybe you can explain it to me. When anyone in Europe as far as I know gets a newer phone, 3G is automatically a part of it. They can access 3G speeds. Is this study talking about this or the fact that they are purchasing QoS and paying for dedicated bandwidth?
I have to admit that I haven't studied this situation. But the numbers speak for themselves. Only a small percentage of users are on 3G networks. How or why I don't know. It just is.
It's possible that buying a phone in most places doesn't automatically place you in a 3G network. One may have to apply for it when getting their phone and contract. Most people don't seem to want to pay for it.
It looks to me as though the situation is really not that different from where it was a few years ago when the 3G networks were being installed and pushed. I remember quite well that customers in both Japan and Europe wanted nothing to do with it. Companies all over were complaining that their sign-up rates were far below expectations.
My suspicion why the cell companies are so eager for the iPhone is for exactly that very reason. iPhone users are practically the totality of data users around the world when talking about mobile use.
All of the rest of the phones put together are but a small percentage of iPhone usage. That fact has got those companies excited, because they see that with the iPhone, users will finally want 3G for real, and will finally use it for real. That means more 3G subscribers added to their anemic 3G subscriber lists, and more profits for them?finally!
All this talk about how much earlier these areas went to 3G has really been meaningless until the new iPhone appeared. This is what will make it meaningful, and that obviously includes Japan, where 3G is NOT nearly as popular as some people here insist it is. The numbers show that.
And, of course, it won't just be the iPhone. Other manufacturers, in copying the device in their own small ways will make it easier for other phones to use the data services as well, though with their second rate OS's, those phones won't be equal to the iPhone for a couple of years, and I would imagine that during that time, Apple wont be standing still.
Just using a program that has the Open GL acceleration is amazing.
Sorry melgross, have to jump in here and I might even answer my question that I just put to you. In our embassy we have some people that are out all day and need to use data to check their emails. We simply have unlimited data activated on their subscription. The phone was already capable of 3G data services, just that there is now a dedicated service behind it. They could use a sort of per usage type of well, usage which is expensive or they can now have unlimited data usage. If the study was looking at my first description then it is wrong as here in Finland probably the rest of Europe 3G is already active without a subscription.
You said the magic word, and the rubber ducky just dropped down on its string.
You work for the "embassy". How many others in any country work for embassies? Not many I would expect. most "normal" people simply haven't been willing to spend the money for these expensive connections.
Even RIM hasn't been using 3G. Only now, with the challenge of the iPhone will they be pushing it. It really isn't required for most uses, business or otherwise. In fact, for most use it will be a consumer thing rather than a business or governmental thing. And most consumers can't afford what business and government can. They need to be persuaded, and so far, they haven't been in large numbers.
I have to admit that I haven't studied this situation. But the numbers speak for themselves. Only a small percentage of users are on 3G networks. How or why I don't know. It just is.
It's possible that buying a phone in most places doesn't automatically place you in a 3G network. One may have to apply for it when getting their phone and contract. Most people don't seem to want to pay for it.
[...]
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the whole thread. so forgive if I'm covering old territory, but could that mean even if a phone is capable of 3G that the phone may just use GSM if a data plan is not enabled?
Comments
This, I totally agree with.
I thought the article proved that the ANTENNA section was not faulty. Where did this leap that the hardware is not faulty come from? Oh, never mind. AI reporting again.
I am not sure with what you mean by 3G subscribers. When I get my contract here in Finland, 3G is simply part of it. Do you mean dedicated bandwidth? I can use all the 3G I want but I can also ask for dedicated 1 or 2 meg and pay for this dedicated bandwidth.
Oh, 45 million subscibers is quite a bit in any study.
But it looks as though those numbers are not European numbers. I doubt if Europe has over 910 million cell subscribers. They only have about half that number of people.
The phone was currently running 2.0.1. I told her to update the phone to 2.0.2. Even with 2.0.1, flipping on 3G only took a few seconds to acquire the 3G network. I downloaded a few webpages and compared it to my original iPhone. 3G wasn't blazing fast, but it was noticibly faster than Edge. Depending on the network and sites you are browsing, yes, it was about 2x faster than Edge.
The phone works as advertised. I think the big complainers bought the phone without checking AT&T's 3G network coverage, and then found out they are in an area with limited coverage and complain instead of returning the phone.
Wow... I didn't know that there was a Birmingham in the US, seriously (o_O)
The 8525 is UMTS (3G), the iPhone 3G is actually 3.5G (HSDPA), but I guess "iPhone three point five gee" or "iPhone three and a half gee" were a little bit too long for marketing reasons :-P
Doesn't matter. UMTS is UMTS. Be it 3G or 3.5G.
But it looks as though those numbers are not European numbers. I doubt if Europe has over 910 million cell subscribers. They only have about half that number of people.
I know. I started to get scared. I was thinking there were some night people or something hidden that I did not know about.
Maybe you can explain it to me. When anyone in Europe as far as I know gets a newer phone, 3G is automatically a part of it. They can access 3G speeds. Is this study talking about this or the fact that they are purchasing QoS and paying for dedicated bandwidth?
Just saw this: http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2004/...western_eu.htm
The story here though, is that the percentage has barely changed. It's pretty low, which is what I've been trying to get across for a while now. It's also why I've thought that 3G isn't really all that important in Europe, or most anywhere yet, though some here have insisted that it is.
Just because a service is available doesn't mean that larger percentages of people will get it.
Sorry melgross, have to jump in here and I might even answer my question that I just put to you. In our embassy we have some people that are out all day and need to use data to check their emails. We simply have unlimited data activated on their subscription. The phone was already capable of 3G data services, just that there is now a dedicated service behind it. They could use a sort of per usage type of well, usage which is expensive or they can now have unlimited data usage. If the study was looking at my first description then it is wrong as here in Finland probably the rest of Europe 3G is already active without a subscription.
Saw a friend's iPhone 3G today in the Los Angeles area, Valencia to be specific. The 3G worked great. She lives in Burbank and has a full 3G signal at home too. She primarily uses the phone with Edge (smart) to conserve battery and flips on 3G whenever needed.
The phone was currently running 2.0.1. I told her to update the phone to 2.0.2. Even with 2.0.1, flipping on 3G only took a few seconds to acquire the 3G network. I downloaded a few webpages and compared it to my original iPhone. 3G wasn't blazing fast, but it was noticibly faster than Edge. Depending on the network and sites you are browsing, yes, it was about 2x faster than Edge.
The phone works as advertised. I think the big complainers bought the phone without checking AT&T's 3G network coverage, and then found out they are in an area with limited coverage and complain instead of returning the phone.
Finland has only about 5.2 million people but they will have 113% penetration.
http://wirelessfederation.com/news/t...-mark-finland/
The tests tell us that under laboratory conditions, the Phone works to spec. It does not tell us whether the iPhone works out in the real world.
The iPhone may very well be working perfectly in the real world. It may very well be a lemon. This test doesn't address the real world situations people are complaining about.
A phone's physical design encourages people to hold it in their hands a certain way, and hold it a certain distance from their head. With a badly designed phone, these simple actions might block the signal. That would be a major problem that would NOT show up under the type of standard testing conditions described.
I'm not saying their is a problem with the iPhone 3G. I'm just saying laboratory tests don't always tell us about real world performance.
Exactly! Though I haven't seen the full specifications of the laboratory test setup there are the following factors to consider: the HEAD and the HAND:
HEAD: From what one can see on the pictures in the swedish newspaper. The iPhone is operated in free-space during the test. If this was really the case this is the first weak point in the study. I expect that, because the iphone shows pretty high SAR for its size and having the antenna in the lower part. (advantage of that antenna location usally is that the SAR is pretty low when tested on the head) With a good antenna/low-SAR design I would expect one could a factor of 10 reduction in SAR. (remember all energy you lose/absorb in the users head wont be available in the communication channel)
HAND: How are you holding your phone? With a low loss dielectric holder or your hand which covers the whole antenna part with your palm. (this is the disadvantage of having an antenna at the lower end of the phone). Quick test: It make a difference of 2 bars on my iPhone 3G when I cover the lower part of the phone with my hand or not!
1. The report only concludes that the antenna isn't at fault. It isn't that hard to design an antenna, so we can probably assume that Apple got that part right.
2. It says nothing about the capability, sensitivity, or build quality of the phone's radio, which is what was speculated to be causing the problem in the first place.
3. They only tested at 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz. AT&T in the US uses both 1900 MHz and 850 MHz. 850 MHz, to be used properly, requires an antenna twice as long as one tuned to 1900 MHz (though an antenna designed for 850 should work fine for 1900). So if they didn't test at 850 MHz, we just don't know for sure how well it is going to perform on AT&T's network.
4. The chart showing sensitivity lists the units as deciBels (which is normal for signal reception). But deciBels are logarithmic, so a difference of 2dB is actually significant. When taken into consideration that a difference of 3dB is an approximate doubling of signal power, a 2dB difference actually can mean a difference between picking up and not picking up a signal under some circumstances.
5. Given that some users are having problems, while others aren't, tends to indicate that the problem probably isn't a fundamental design flaw. It's more likely found in the implementation in a given device.
For AppleInsider to extrapolate that the iPhone 3G doesn't suffer from faulty hardware is a bit of a stretch from the results of an antenna test.
A few interesting bits of information:
1. The report only concludes that the antenna isn't at fault. It isn't that hard to design an antenna, so we can probably assume that Apple got that part right.
2. It says nothing about the capability, sensitivity, or build quality of the phone's radio, which is what was speculated to be causing the problem in the first place.
3. They only tested at 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz. AT&T in the US uses both 1900 MHz and 850 MHz. 850 MHz, to be used properly, requires an antenna twice as long as one tuned to 1900 MHz (though an antenna designed for 850 should work fine for 1900). So if they didn't test at 850 MHz, we just don't know for sure how well it is going to perform on AT&T's network.
4. The chart showing sensitivity lists the units as deciBels (which is normal for signal reception). But deciBels are logarithmic, so a difference of 2dB is actually significant. When taken into consideration that a difference of 3dB is an approximate doubling of signal power, a 2dB difference actually can mean a difference between picking up and not picking up a signal under some circumstances.
5. Given that some users are having problems, while others aren't, tends to indicate that the problem probably isn't a fundamental design flaw. It's more likely found in the implementation in a given device.
For AppleInsider to extrapolate that the iPhone 3G doesn't suffer from faulty hardware is a bit of a stretch from the results of an antenna test.
You are my hero. Would you agree that more testing should have been done in different environments to determine a baseline performance standard across all frequencies.
I am not sure with what you mean by 3G subscribers. When I get my contract here in Finland, 3G is simply part of it. Do you mean dedicated bandwidth? I can use all the 3G I want but I can also ask for dedicated 1 or 2 meg and pay for this dedicated bandwidth.
Oh, 45 million subscibers is quite a bit in any study.
Boy, are you late in the conversation. As I updated the number to 100 million as of May 2008 and included the reference http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/, which states in part,
"The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers (in Europe) at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted."
Boy, are you late in the conversation. As I updated the number to 100 million as of May 2008 and included the reference http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/, which states in part,
"The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers (in Europe) at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted."
Just so I know how to respond to you in the future, were you sort of speaking in a condescending tone? I do not want to be accused of jumping on your for no reason. I asked my question because the study did not make sense as 3G is included in ALL phone subscriptions. You can request a specific speed (subscription as well), or simply pay as you use. If my question was too hard for you then next time just ignore it.
Just so I know how to respond to you in the future, were you sort of speaking in a condescending tone? I do not want to be accused of jumping on your for no reason. I asked my question because the study did not make sense as 3G is included in ALL phone subscriptions. You can request a specific speed (subscription as well), or simply pay as you use. If my question was too hard for you then next time just ignore it.
I apologize if you so think so.
But to which of the two (actually only one) studies I referenced were you referring?
"European 3G subscriber count reaches 100 million
Market research firm Informa Telecoms has released a report that says the number of 3G subscribers in Europe has reached and surpassed the 100 millionth mark.
The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted." http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/
My involvement as a researcher and a creature of habit, I tend to support my statements/positioning with accompanying references. And, I expect similar action in response. I also explore the links to ensure accuracy and try to acknowledge my errors in kind.
Just for clarification, my initial comment that started this all, i.e., "AT&T is in the build stage. Actually one of the reasons why Apple didn't jump into 3G in the first place. (Interesting, but as of Dec 27, there were only 45 million 3G subscribers in Europe.)" was, as I later acknowledge, in error. The study report was for April 2, approximately 3 months before the iPhone was introduced.
As such, my original declaration was correct, the supported date was wrong.
I apologize if you so think so.
But to which of the two (actually only one) studies I referenced were you referring?
"European 3G subscriber count reaches 100 million
Market research firm Informa Telecoms has released a report that says the number of 3G subscribers in Europe has reached and surpassed the 100 millionth mark.
The report says that out of the total 910.8 million mobile subscribers at the end of May, there were 101.5 million 3G subscriptions. Only devices that were actively used for either voice or data services (or both) were counted." http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/06/2...s-100-million/
My involvement as a researcher and a creature of habit, I tend to support my statements/positioning with accompanying references. And, I expect similar action in response. I also explore the links to ensure accuracy and try to acknowledge my errors in kind.
Just for clarification, my initial comment that started this all, i.e., "AT&T is in the build stage. Actually one of the reasons why Apple didn't jump into 3G in the first place. (Interesting, but as of Dec 27, there were only 45 million 3G subscribers in Europe.)" was, as I later acknowledge, in error. The study report was for April 2, approximately 3 months before the iPhone was introduced.
As such, my original declaration was correct, the supported date was wrong.
Hell, now I am confused.
I'm just throwing it out. I am not really sure what they used to say is or is not a subscription.
I know. I started to get scared. I was thinking there were some night people or something hidden that I did not know about.
Maybe you can explain it to me. When anyone in Europe as far as I know gets a newer phone, 3G is automatically a part of it. They can access 3G speeds. Is this study talking about this or the fact that they are purchasing QoS and paying for dedicated bandwidth?
Just saw this: http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2004/...western_eu.htm
I have to admit that I haven't studied this situation. But the numbers speak for themselves. Only a small percentage of users are on 3G networks. How or why I don't know. It just is.
It's possible that buying a phone in most places doesn't automatically place you in a 3G network. One may have to apply for it when getting their phone and contract. Most people don't seem to want to pay for it.
It looks to me as though the situation is really not that different from where it was a few years ago when the 3G networks were being installed and pushed. I remember quite well that customers in both Japan and Europe wanted nothing to do with it. Companies all over were complaining that their sign-up rates were far below expectations.
My suspicion why the cell companies are so eager for the iPhone is for exactly that very reason. iPhone users are practically the totality of data users around the world when talking about mobile use.
All of the rest of the phones put together are but a small percentage of iPhone usage. That fact has got those companies excited, because they see that with the iPhone, users will finally want 3G for real, and will finally use it for real. That means more 3G subscribers added to their anemic 3G subscriber lists, and more profits for them?finally!
All this talk about how much earlier these areas went to 3G has really been meaningless until the new iPhone appeared. This is what will make it meaningful, and that obviously includes Japan, where 3G is NOT nearly as popular as some people here insist it is. The numbers show that.
And, of course, it won't just be the iPhone. Other manufacturers, in copying the device in their own small ways will make it easier for other phones to use the data services as well, though with their second rate OS's, those phones won't be equal to the iPhone for a couple of years, and I would imagine that during that time, Apple wont be standing still.
Just using a program that has the Open GL acceleration is amazing.
Sorry melgross, have to jump in here and I might even answer my question that I just put to you. In our embassy we have some people that are out all day and need to use data to check their emails. We simply have unlimited data activated on their subscription. The phone was already capable of 3G data services, just that there is now a dedicated service behind it. They could use a sort of per usage type of well, usage which is expensive or they can now have unlimited data usage. If the study was looking at my first description then it is wrong as here in Finland probably the rest of Europe 3G is already active without a subscription.
You said the magic word, and the rubber ducky just dropped down on its string.
You work for the "embassy". How many others in any country work for embassies? Not many I would expect. most "normal" people simply haven't been willing to spend the money for these expensive connections.
Even RIM hasn't been using 3G. Only now, with the challenge of the iPhone will they be pushing it. It really isn't required for most uses, business or otherwise. In fact, for most use it will be a consumer thing rather than a business or governmental thing. And most consumers can't afford what business and government can. They need to be persuaded, and so far, they haven't been in large numbers.
I have to admit that I haven't studied this situation. But the numbers speak for themselves. Only a small percentage of users are on 3G networks. How or why I don't know. It just is.
It's possible that buying a phone in most places doesn't automatically place you in a 3G network. One may have to apply for it when getting their phone and contract. Most people don't seem to want to pay for it.
[...]
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the whole thread. so forgive if I'm covering old territory, but could that mean even if a phone is capable of 3G that the phone may just use GSM if a data plan is not enabled?
That 100 million is in the EU, where did you get that out of 900 million figure from?
These aren't my numbers. go back several posts to find the one that posted them.