I've been exclusively using Verizon ever since my first cell phone many years ago. The nickel and dime shaft that Verizon sticks its users with is terrible. Despite this, I have stuck with Verizon only because I've only ever used the basic phones and features. I don't know if Verizon still does, but paying $2.99 for a ring tone or being charged to move a camera phone picture to your desktop is ridiculous. I would love to see Verizon change its ways, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
On a separate gripe I have with Verizon phones is the lack of support for the Mac OS. The software on the the 2.5 yrs old phone I'm using is Windows only. Some of the mid level phones have some nice features and good design, but ultimately are useless to me if Verizon won't provide OSX versions of the syncing/uploading software.
Now we have Apple and the iPhone violently shaking up the mobile phone market. Apple is a champion for the user and rewards customer loyalty. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Apple partly designs products that Apple users are missing or only have by means of a crappy hack method. So if the Apple user market is missing something, like a smartphone that syncs easily with OSX, then Apple releases one that does. A clearer way to summarize this is if there is little to no third party support for a company's platform, then one has to rely on the first party to fulfill users' needs, and thankfully Apple has been good at providing grade A, industry changing, first party products (and generously throws a big bone to Windows users).
...although many pundits insist that the company didn't even conceive the concept of third party software until shortly before the launch of iPhone 2.0...
BTW, I notice you are pretty much a single issue poster. We have a few of those around here, like samab, who shows up anytime the merits of CDMA are questioned, and is obviously paid to do so. So, since you are all, rah rah cloud, and pretty much nothing else, it makes one wonder if there isn't a high degree of self interest involved in the content of your posts.
Not single issue, definitely not paid to do so, although this is something that does interests me, and you and I have talked about this before. It probably comes from me owning multiple computers as well as an iPad and iPhone. I want to access the current version of my data no matter which device I'm using. The old personal computer paradigm of the single version of the file sitting on the local harddrive doesn't work so well.
BTW, I notice you are pretty much a single issue poster. We have a few of those around here, like samab, who shows up anytime the merits of CDMA are questioned, and is obviously paid to do so. So, since you are all, rah rah cloud, and pretty much nothing else, it makes one wonder if there isn't a high degree of self interest involved in the content of your posts.
There is no question about the merits of CDMA --- as Qualcomm is the largest mobile pure play technology company in the world. Qualcomm won. AT&T just decided to put Qualcomm BREW on all their mid-level feature phones --- Qualcomm won again.
There is no question about the technical merits of CDMA --- as we only talk about how you can't do voice and data at the same time, only when Verizon is migrating to 4G LTE. Or how CDMA lacks video calling --- nobody cares about these stuff.
As I have repeatedly said --- the worldwide launch of the iphone exposed all the flaws of these arguments. Having the technical ease of switching SIM cards --- is totally negated by SIM-locks that don't have to be unlocked by law (which pre-iphone, everybody thought wrongly that it's the law in Europe), and the fact that most Europeans have to pay off the rest of the contract in order to switch carriers.
Both CDMA and GSM carriers are migrating to OFDMA based networks.
Why do you do this every time you are backed into a corner and losing an argument? It makes everything else you’ve stated seems weak. Sure, most are moving to or planning to move to a network that uses an (OFDMA) Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access based network, which is more commonly referred to LTE as it uses the HSOPA (High Speed OFDM Packet Access which we now call E-UTRA (Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access).This doesn’t change the fact that it’s still part of LTE which is built from 3GPP, or that Qualcomm has a some patents in LTE, it’s just that they have a lot less than they would have had their excessively priced ‘3G’ and ‘4G’ solutions had panned out… which they didn’t.
Quote:
And the better technology does not always win in the market place --- i.e. VHS vs. Beta.
In the end, you still have most the world using a technology that is much better in nearly every way and considerably faster than the antiquated ‘3G’ technology you constantly push as being better. In this case the better technology clearly won.
I included data in my original response, so yeah, it's a bad idea to put that there too. Backups with a Mac and Time Machine are such a no-brainer that even my mother can do them. It's just an illusion that the cloud offers any really advantages.
ChromeOS only makes any sense for companies that are creating their own web apps and managing their own data, and have employees doing very specific tasks who never need to step outside the sandbox. Anyone else adopting it is putting themselves at risk for compromised security and privacy, as well as lowered productivity. And, I doubt very much that companies are going to realize any significant savings from supposed (unsubstantiated) lower costs associated with this model of computing.
ChromeOS isn't anything new or special. It's just the latest iteration in a long string of "thin clients" pushed by those who believe that data and computing should be centrally controlled. It's an attempt to take us back to the "green screen" paradigm of computing. It's been rejected over and over again, and there's no reason to think it will end up being more successful on this go-round. There's every reason for it to be rejected, once again.
Good to see anonymouse has held the fort down in my absence.
I think Apple has a very good grasp of how "the cloud" (the newest name for the the internet and remote storage which as anonymouse has pointed out, is being reframed as thin client) can be used (as a tool for users) and it doesn't have to do with someone else owning the user's data and mining it for gold.
I included data in my original response, so yeah, it's a bad idea to put that there too. Backups with a Mac and Time Machine are such a no-brainer that even my mother can do them. It's just an illusion that the cloud offers any really advantages.
ChromeOS only makes any sense for companies that are creating their own web apps and managing their own data, and have employees doing very specific tasks who never need to step outside the sandbox. Anyone else adopting it is putting themselves at risk for compromised security and privacy, as well as lowered productivity. And, I doubt very much that companies are going to realize any significant savings from supposed (unsubstantiated) lower costs associated with this model of computing.
ChromeOS isn't anything new or special. It's just the latest iteration in a long string of "thin clients" pushed by those who believe that data and computing should be centrally controlled. It's an attempt to take us back to the "green screen" paradigm of computing. It's been rejected over and over again, and there's no reason to think it will end up being more successful on this go-round. There's every reason for it to be rejected, once again.
Chrome OS isn't a thin client and there is no need to ever be tied to an intra/internet if one doesn't want to be. Compare to WebOS on the Palm Pre and soon to be on HP tablets. You can use these OSes "offline". They can store data locally using HTML5's DB option. Of course, they are designed for internet use and usingbtye one thing computer users and web developers know most about, the web browser. This is a brilliant move, IMO.
Why do you do this every time you are backed into a corner and losing an argument? It makes everything else you?ve stated seems weak. Sure, most are moving to or planning to move to a network that uses an (MFDMA) Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access based network, which is more commonly referred to LTE as it uses the HSOPA (High Speed OFDM Packet Access which we now call E-UTRA (Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access).This doesn?t change the fact that it?s still part of LTE which is built from 3GPP, or that Qualcomm has a some patents in LTE, it?s just that they have a lot less than they would have had their excessively priced ?3G? and ?4G? solutions had panned out? which they didn?t.
In the end, you still have most the world using a technology that is much better in nearly every way and considerably faster than the antiquated ?3G? technology you constantly push as being better. In this case the better technology clearly won.
Not really considerably faster than antiquated CDMA 3G technology at all. The rest of the world likes to hype theoretical speed --- American carriers don't. EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channel size vs. HSDPA uses 5 MHz channel size. On a per MHz comparison, they are pretty much equal in speed.
As I stated repeatedly, somehow there must be something wrong that Qualcomm becomes the largest mobile technology in the world, that Verizon became the most profitable wireless carrier in the US, that Verizon customers are the most satisfied in consumer surveys. Somehow all the European regulators adopting technology neutral spectrum auctions in the last 5 years --- well, there must be something wrong with the FCC not forcing a single wireless standard.
EVERYTHING that was thought to be the correct regulatory system in Europe --- turn out to be flawed with the iphone launch. Europeans got stuck with a simlocked iphone that they can't unlock, they got stuck with a contract without the benefit of pro-rated ETF, they got stuck with metered iphone data plans years earlier than Americans, some got crippled 3G speed...
Good to see anonymouse has held the fort down in my absence.
I think Apple has a very good grasp of how "the cloud" (the newest name for the the internet and remote storage which as anonymouse has pointed out, is being reframed as thin client) can be used (as a tool for users) and it doesn't have to do with someone else owning the user's data and mining it for gold.
That sounds an anti-Google argument rather than anti-cloud. Anonymouse was arguing (and it is a valid concern) that using a third party (presumably including Apple as well as Google) to store your data is bad due to potential privacy / security issues.
Not really considerably faster than antiquated CDMA 3G technology at all. The rest of the world likes to hype theoretical speed --- American carriers don't. EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channel size vs. HSDPA uses 5 MHz channel size. On a per MHz comparison, they are pretty much equal in speed.
As I stated repeatedly, somehow there must be something wrong that Qualcomm becomes the largest mobile technology in the world, that Verizon became the most profitable wireless carrier in the US, that Verizon customers are the most satisfied in consumer surveys. Somehow all the European regulators adopting technology neutral spectrum auctions in the last 5 years --- well, there must be something wrong with the FCC not forcing a single wireless standard.
EVERYTHING that was thought to be the correct regulatory system in Europe --- turn out to be flawed with the iphone launch. Europeans got stuck with a simlocked iphone that they can't unlock, they got stuck with a contract without the benefit of pro-rated ETF, they got stuck with metered iphone data plans years earlier than Americans, some got crippled 3G speed...
Show me an active CDMA2000 '3G?network that gets faster uploads and downloads than AT&T?s HS*PA ?3G? network, and can do simultaneous voice and data. You can say that Verizon might eventually offer it as the rumours suggest or that EV-DO Rev. B can do it, but I will come back with my own theoretical rhetoric stating the maximum upload and download capabilities of HSDPA and HSUPA which will put any theoretical CDMA2000 network to shame.
CDMA an CDMA2000 are being obsolesced which is why Sprint went with WiMAX and Verizon went with LTE, which is one of the reasons why other countries jumped ship from CDMA to UMTS instead of going with CDMA2000 for 3G, and why AT&T and T-Mobile USA have the advantage of waiting for the LTE HW to mature before pushing an adoption. I think it?s likely that AT&T?s ?3G? will be faster and more power efficient than Verizon and Sprint?s ?4G? for at least a a few years.
Chrome OS isn't a thin client and there is no need to ever be tied to an intra/internet if one doesn't want to be. Compare to WebOS on the Palm Pre and soon to be on HP tablets. You can use these OSes "offline". They can store data locally using HTML5's DB option. Of course, they are designed for internet use and usingbtye one thing computer users and web developers know most about, the web browser. This is a brilliant move, IMO.
Web apps can use offline browser storage, and some of them will, but most of them will also be putting your data on a server somewhere, and many, if not most, of them will require you to access the cloud regularly to be truly useful. The whole business model of these apps will revolve around either subscription services where they can cut you off if you stop paying, or spyware/adware, which will require you to access the network regularly so they can get your data and feed you ads. In all meaningful ways, web apps for processing data will essentially follow the thin client model.
As to WebOS, that's the major downside of it from my perspective. There's no way to sync your data with your own computer(s), you are forced to sync it to the cloud where you lose all control of what happens to it.
EDIT: As I've noted previously, the things that make sense to use as web apps are situations where it isn't your data that is being handled. Things like the HTML5 SproutCore (I think it was them) NPR web app (a demo HTML5 version of the NPR iPad app). In this case, you aren't losing control of anything, simply accessing information that you need access to the Internet to get to anyway. (And even better if it uses local browser storage for offline caching.) When it's your data you are working with, you are, and always will be better served with a local native app and a system that is based on local primary data storage OR a cloud system (personal or corporate) that you control yourself.
That sounds an anti-Google argument rather than anti-cloud. Anonymouse was arguing (and it is a valid concern) that using a third party (presumably including Apple as well as Google) to store your data is bad due to potential privacy / security issues.
Privacy, security, accountability, accessibility, and a host (no pun intended) of other problems. Yes, I think it's best to not let anyone get control of your data. However, if I had to put data in the cloud, I would absolutely choose Apple over Google, primarily because Apple's business model isn't based on controlling information and access to it and on collection personal information solely for the purposes of exploiting it for financial gain. In other words, Apple has less of a vested interest in violating my privacy for financial gain because, unlike Google, that isn't the entire focus of their business. If one has to use a cloud provider, that should be a primary consideration, and other than, say, Black Hat Cloud Services, Google is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel in that regard.
Web apps can use offline browser storage, and some of them will, but most of them will also be putting your data on a server somewhere, and many, if not most, of them will require you to access the cloud regularly to be truly useful. The whole business model of these apps will revolve around either subscription services where they can cut you off if you stop paying, or spyware/adware, which will require you to access the network regularly so they can get your data and feed you ads.
You’re probably right for the most part, but I bet there will be plenty of apps that will be designed to be run locally with or without an internet connection, just like with other apps. I think what Google is doing is the first real chance we’ll see for MS to lose consumer marketshare. Someone can use a notebook, netbook or even a “PC appliance” to run Google Docs and other things without ever connecting to the internet. This could be huge in developing countries.
Quote:
As to WebOS, that's the major downside of it from my perspective. There's no way to sync your data with your own computer(s), you are forced to sync it to the cloud where you lose all control of what happens to it.
They used that for marketing since the iPhone required a physical connection to iTunes, which it’s slowly breaking away from. Remember, they did sync your music via iTunes in this cat-and-mouse game of spoofing the iPod USB vendor ID. There is no reason HP can’t create their own app that backs up apps, app data and anything else directly to a PC locally the way iDevices do. Hopefully, they create a solution that is the best of both worlds between convenient cloud and fast and reliable local connections.
You’re probably right for the most part, but I bet there will be plenty of apps that will be designed to be run locally with or without an internet connection, just like with other apps. I think what Google is doing is the first real chance we’ll see for MS to lose consumer marketshare. Someone can use a notebook, netbook or even a “PC appliance” to run Google Docs and other things without ever connecting to the internet. This could be huge in developing countries.
It could be huge in developing countries, although, it's disturbing that for the less affluent to access the benefits of technology they'll be forced to give up their privacy. Privacy and Liberty are inextricably entwined, and one cannot exist without the other.
But, putting aside considerations of developing nations, if you were going to use a web app that, once downloaded, ran entirely locally and stored all your data locally (and again, I think these will be few and far between) wouldn't you just rather use a native non-browser based app that better takes advantage of the capabilities of your operating system and better integrates with it?
Quote:
They used that for marketing since the iPhone required a physical connection to iTunes, which it’s slowly breaking away from. Remember, they did sync your music via iTunes in this cat-and-mouse game of spoofing the iPod USB vendor ID. There is no reason HP can’t create their own app that backs up apps, app data and anything else directly to a PC locally the way iDevices do. Hopefully, they create a solution that is the best of both worlds between convenient cloud and fast and reliable local connections.
Well, they also did it because they had no money to develop desktop sync software. And Palm had also been inching away from supporting desktop sync for a number of years. A major mistake, in my opinion, since the desktop sync/Palm Desktop software was one of the best things about using a Palm OS device, back in the old days. It will be interesting to see what HP does in this regard, although, I suspect they will pretty much stay the course.
Privacy, security, accountability, accessibility, and a host (no pun intended) of other problems. Yes, I think it's best to not let anyone get control of your data. However, if I had to put data in the cloud, I would absolutely choose Apple over Google, primarily because Apple's business model isn't based on controlling information and access to it and on collection personal information solely for the purposes of exploiting it for financial gain. In other words, Apple has less of a vested interest in violating my privacy for financial gain because, unlike Google, that isn't the entire focus of their business. If one has to use a cloud provider, that should be a primary consideration, and other than, say, Black Hat Cloud Services, Google is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel in that regard.
Amen to everything Anonymouse has said in this discussion (unless I missed something egregious!)
Apple seems to have a great approach to the cloud (so far.) Yes, you pay with Apple (MobileMe should cost half what it does) but their incentive is to give you the service you pay for, not to pick your pocket. Essentially this comes from their very user-centered (see my nickname) approach. They start by creating products and services that they would want to use and go from there. If they can offer that product or service and make money, then they do it. If not, they go back to the drawing board. Most companies start with "How can we get people to give us their hard earned cash?" This is a huge difference in approach that makes a huge difference in the product delivered and it's relative value to the user. Call me paranoid but the fact is the more I read, the less I want to use most internet offerings (and that goes double for Google.)
Show me an active CDMA2000 '3G?network that gets faster uploads and downloads than AT&T?s HS*PA ?3G? network, and can do simultaneous voice and data. You can say that Verizon might eventually offer it as the rumours suggest or that EV-DO Rev. B can do it, but I will come back with my own theoretical rhetoric stating the maximum upload and download capabilities of HSDPA and HSUPA which will put any theoretical CDMA2000 network to shame.
CDMA an CDMA2000 are being obsolesced which is why Sprint went with WiMAX and Verizon went with LTE, which is one of the reasons why other countries jumped ship from CDMA to UMTS instead of going with CDMA2000 for 3G, and why AT&T and T-Mobile USA have the advantage of waiting for the LTE HW to mature before pushing an adoption. I think it?s likely that AT&T?s ?3G? will be faster and more power efficient than Verizon and Sprint?s ?4G? for at least a a few years.
You are talking about ev-do being nearly EOL right now --- of course they have slower speed than the other competing technology. That's very different than saying ev-do is garbage when during its 6-7 year period, it did its job perfectly.
Same thing with simultaneous voice and data --- you are only talking about it right now, when ev-do is at its EOL period. Meanwhile WCDMA had video calling from the start 10 years ago --- and when every carriers migrate to 4G, video calling would still be a gimmick.
Verizon had its 10 years of making money, Verizon customers had its 10 years of good service, and Qualcomm had its 10 years of making money. Everybody is happy except you who wants to make an argument out of it.
Comments
Considering that Verizon beat AT&T in the postpaid net adds in a iphone launch quarter --- the whole AT&T management should be fired.
This, I agree.
On a separate gripe I have with Verizon phones is the lack of support for the Mac OS. The software on the the 2.5 yrs old phone I'm using is Windows only. Some of the mid level phones have some nice features and good design, but ultimately are useless to me if Verizon won't provide OSX versions of the syncing/uploading software.
Now we have Apple and the iPhone violently shaking up the mobile phone market. Apple is a champion for the user and rewards customer loyalty. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Apple partly designs products that Apple users are missing or only have by means of a crappy hack method. So if the Apple user market is missing something, like a smartphone that syncs easily with OSX, then Apple releases one that does. A clearer way to summarize this is if there is little to no third party support for a company's platform, then one has to rely on the first party to fulfill users' needs, and thankfully Apple has been good at providing grade A, industry changing, first party products (and generously throws a big bone to Windows users).
...although many pundits insist that the company didn't even conceive the concept of third party software until shortly before the launch of iPhone 2.0...
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Yea right!
Those nay-saying pundits never conceived anything at all!
BTW, I notice you are pretty much a single issue poster. We have a few of those around here, like samab, who shows up anytime the merits of CDMA are questioned, and is obviously paid to do so. So, since you are all, rah rah cloud, and pretty much nothing else, it makes one wonder if there isn't a high degree of self interest involved in the content of your posts.
Not single issue, definitely not paid to do so, although this is something that does interests me, and you and I have talked about this before. It probably comes from me owning multiple computers as well as an iPad and iPhone. I want to access the current version of my data no matter which device I'm using. The old personal computer paradigm of the single version of the file sitting on the local harddrive doesn't work so well.
BTW, I notice you are pretty much a single issue poster. We have a few of those around here, like samab, who shows up anytime the merits of CDMA are questioned, and is obviously paid to do so. So, since you are all, rah rah cloud, and pretty much nothing else, it makes one wonder if there isn't a high degree of self interest involved in the content of your posts.
There is no question about the merits of CDMA --- as Qualcomm is the largest mobile pure play technology company in the world. Qualcomm won. AT&T just decided to put Qualcomm BREW on all their mid-level feature phones --- Qualcomm won again.
There is no question about the technical merits of CDMA --- as we only talk about how you can't do voice and data at the same time, only when Verizon is migrating to 4G LTE. Or how CDMA lacks video calling --- nobody cares about these stuff.
As I have repeatedly said --- the worldwide launch of the iphone exposed all the flaws of these arguments. Having the technical ease of switching SIM cards --- is totally negated by SIM-locks that don't have to be unlocked by law (which pre-iphone, everybody thought wrongly that it's the law in Europe), and the fact that most Europeans have to pay off the rest of the contract in order to switch carriers.
There is no question about the technical merits of CDMA
Then why are all the wireless carriers running from CDMA as fast as they can?
Then why are all the wireless carriers running from CDMA as fast as they can?
Both CDMA and GSM carriers are migrating to OFDMA based networks.
And the better technology does not always win in the market place --- i.e. VHS vs. Beta.
Both CDMA and GSM carriers are migrating to OFDMA based networks.
Why do you do this every time you are backed into a corner and losing an argument? It makes everything else you’ve stated seems weak. Sure, most are moving to or planning to move to a network that uses an (OFDMA) Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access based network, which is more commonly referred to LTE as it uses the HSOPA (High Speed OFDM Packet Access which we now call E-UTRA (Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access).This doesn’t change the fact that it’s still part of LTE which is built from 3GPP, or that Qualcomm has a some patents in LTE, it’s just that they have a lot less than they would have had their excessively priced ‘3G’ and ‘4G’ solutions had panned out… which they didn’t.
And the better technology does not always win in the market place --- i.e. VHS vs. Beta.
In the end, you still have most the world using a technology that is much better in nearly every way and considerably faster than the antiquated ‘3G’ technology you constantly push as being better. In this case the better technology clearly won.
I included data in my original response, so yeah, it's a bad idea to put that there too. Backups with a Mac and Time Machine are such a no-brainer that even my mother can do them. It's just an illusion that the cloud offers any really advantages.
ChromeOS only makes any sense for companies that are creating their own web apps and managing their own data, and have employees doing very specific tasks who never need to step outside the sandbox. Anyone else adopting it is putting themselves at risk for compromised security and privacy, as well as lowered productivity. And, I doubt very much that companies are going to realize any significant savings from supposed (unsubstantiated) lower costs associated with this model of computing.
ChromeOS isn't anything new or special. It's just the latest iteration in a long string of "thin clients" pushed by those who believe that data and computing should be centrally controlled. It's an attempt to take us back to the "green screen" paradigm of computing. It's been rejected over and over again, and there's no reason to think it will end up being more successful on this go-round. There's every reason for it to be rejected, once again.
Good to see anonymouse has held the fort down in my absence.
I think Apple has a very good grasp of how "the cloud" (the newest name for the the internet and remote storage which as anonymouse has pointed out, is being reframed as thin client) can be used (as a tool for users) and it doesn't have to do with someone else owning the user's data and mining it for gold.
I included data in my original response, so yeah, it's a bad idea to put that there too. Backups with a Mac and Time Machine are such a no-brainer that even my mother can do them. It's just an illusion that the cloud offers any really advantages.
ChromeOS only makes any sense for companies that are creating their own web apps and managing their own data, and have employees doing very specific tasks who never need to step outside the sandbox. Anyone else adopting it is putting themselves at risk for compromised security and privacy, as well as lowered productivity. And, I doubt very much that companies are going to realize any significant savings from supposed (unsubstantiated) lower costs associated with this model of computing.
ChromeOS isn't anything new or special. It's just the latest iteration in a long string of "thin clients" pushed by those who believe that data and computing should be centrally controlled. It's an attempt to take us back to the "green screen" paradigm of computing. It's been rejected over and over again, and there's no reason to think it will end up being more successful on this go-round. There's every reason for it to be rejected, once again.
Chrome OS isn't a thin client and there is no need to ever be tied to an intra/internet if one doesn't want to be. Compare to WebOS on the Palm Pre and soon to be on HP tablets. You can use these OSes "offline". They can store data locally using HTML5's DB option. Of course, they are designed for internet use and usingbtye one thing computer users and web developers know most about, the web browser. This is a brilliant move, IMO.
Why do you do this every time you are backed into a corner and losing an argument? It makes everything else you?ve stated seems weak. Sure, most are moving to or planning to move to a network that uses an (MFDMA) Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple Access based network, which is more commonly referred to LTE as it uses the HSOPA (High Speed OFDM Packet Access which we now call E-UTRA (Evolved UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access).This doesn?t change the fact that it?s still part of LTE which is built from 3GPP, or that Qualcomm has a some patents in LTE, it?s just that they have a lot less than they would have had their excessively priced ?3G? and ?4G? solutions had panned out? which they didn?t.
In the end, you still have most the world using a technology that is much better in nearly every way and considerably faster than the antiquated ?3G? technology you constantly push as being better. In this case the better technology clearly won.
Not really considerably faster than antiquated CDMA 3G technology at all. The rest of the world likes to hype theoretical speed --- American carriers don't. EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channel size vs. HSDPA uses 5 MHz channel size. On a per MHz comparison, they are pretty much equal in speed.
As I stated repeatedly, somehow there must be something wrong that Qualcomm becomes the largest mobile technology in the world, that Verizon became the most profitable wireless carrier in the US, that Verizon customers are the most satisfied in consumer surveys. Somehow all the European regulators adopting technology neutral spectrum auctions in the last 5 years --- well, there must be something wrong with the FCC not forcing a single wireless standard.
EVERYTHING that was thought to be the correct regulatory system in Europe --- turn out to be flawed with the iphone launch. Europeans got stuck with a simlocked iphone that they can't unlock, they got stuck with a contract without the benefit of pro-rated ETF, they got stuck with metered iphone data plans years earlier than Americans, some got crippled 3G speed...
Good to see anonymouse has held the fort down in my absence.
I think Apple has a very good grasp of how "the cloud" (the newest name for the the internet and remote storage which as anonymouse has pointed out, is being reframed as thin client) can be used (as a tool for users) and it doesn't have to do with someone else owning the user's data and mining it for gold.
That sounds an anti-Google argument rather than anti-cloud. Anonymouse was arguing (and it is a valid concern) that using a third party (presumably including Apple as well as Google) to store your data is bad due to potential privacy / security issues.
Not really considerably faster than antiquated CDMA 3G technology at all. The rest of the world likes to hype theoretical speed --- American carriers don't. EV-DO uses 1.5 MHz channel size vs. HSDPA uses 5 MHz channel size. On a per MHz comparison, they are pretty much equal in speed.
As I stated repeatedly, somehow there must be something wrong that Qualcomm becomes the largest mobile technology in the world, that Verizon became the most profitable wireless carrier in the US, that Verizon customers are the most satisfied in consumer surveys. Somehow all the European regulators adopting technology neutral spectrum auctions in the last 5 years --- well, there must be something wrong with the FCC not forcing a single wireless standard.
EVERYTHING that was thought to be the correct regulatory system in Europe --- turn out to be flawed with the iphone launch. Europeans got stuck with a simlocked iphone that they can't unlock, they got stuck with a contract without the benefit of pro-rated ETF, they got stuck with metered iphone data plans years earlier than Americans, some got crippled 3G speed...
Show me an active CDMA2000 '3G?network that gets faster uploads and downloads than AT&T?s HS*PA ?3G? network, and can do simultaneous voice and data. You can say that Verizon might eventually offer it as the rumours suggest or that EV-DO Rev. B can do it, but I will come back with my own theoretical rhetoric stating the maximum upload and download capabilities of HSDPA and HSUPA which will put any theoretical CDMA2000 network to shame.
CDMA an CDMA2000 are being obsolesced which is why Sprint went with WiMAX and Verizon went with LTE, which is one of the reasons why other countries jumped ship from CDMA to UMTS instead of going with CDMA2000 for 3G, and why AT&T and T-Mobile USA have the advantage of waiting for the LTE HW to mature before pushing an adoption. I think it?s likely that AT&T?s ?3G? will be faster and more power efficient than Verizon and Sprint?s ?4G? for at least a a few years.
Chrome OS isn't a thin client and there is no need to ever be tied to an intra/internet if one doesn't want to be. Compare to WebOS on the Palm Pre and soon to be on HP tablets. You can use these OSes "offline". They can store data locally using HTML5's DB option. Of course, they are designed for internet use and usingbtye one thing computer users and web developers know most about, the web browser. This is a brilliant move, IMO.
Web apps can use offline browser storage, and some of them will, but most of them will also be putting your data on a server somewhere, and many, if not most, of them will require you to access the cloud regularly to be truly useful. The whole business model of these apps will revolve around either subscription services where they can cut you off if you stop paying, or spyware/adware, which will require you to access the network regularly so they can get your data and feed you ads. In all meaningful ways, web apps for processing data will essentially follow the thin client model.
As to WebOS, that's the major downside of it from my perspective. There's no way to sync your data with your own computer(s), you are forced to sync it to the cloud where you lose all control of what happens to it.
EDIT: As I've noted previously, the things that make sense to use as web apps are situations where it isn't your data that is being handled. Things like the HTML5 SproutCore (I think it was them) NPR web app (a demo HTML5 version of the NPR iPad app). In this case, you aren't losing control of anything, simply accessing information that you need access to the Internet to get to anyway. (And even better if it uses local browser storage for offline caching.) When it's your data you are working with, you are, and always will be better served with a local native app and a system that is based on local primary data storage OR a cloud system (personal or corporate) that you control yourself.
That sounds an anti-Google argument rather than anti-cloud. Anonymouse was arguing (and it is a valid concern) that using a third party (presumably including Apple as well as Google) to store your data is bad due to potential privacy / security issues.
Privacy, security, accountability, accessibility, and a host (no pun intended) of other problems. Yes, I think it's best to not let anyone get control of your data. However, if I had to put data in the cloud, I would absolutely choose Apple over Google, primarily because Apple's business model isn't based on controlling information and access to it and on collection personal information solely for the purposes of exploiting it for financial gain. In other words, Apple has less of a vested interest in violating my privacy for financial gain because, unlike Google, that isn't the entire focus of their business. If one has to use a cloud provider, that should be a primary consideration, and other than, say, Black Hat Cloud Services, Google is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel in that regard.
Web apps can use offline browser storage, and some of them will, but most of them will also be putting your data on a server somewhere, and many, if not most, of them will require you to access the cloud regularly to be truly useful. The whole business model of these apps will revolve around either subscription services where they can cut you off if you stop paying, or spyware/adware, which will require you to access the network regularly so they can get your data and feed you ads.
You’re probably right for the most part, but I bet there will be plenty of apps that will be designed to be run locally with or without an internet connection, just like with other apps. I think what Google is doing is the first real chance we’ll see for MS to lose consumer marketshare. Someone can use a notebook, netbook or even a “PC appliance” to run Google Docs and other things without ever connecting to the internet. This could be huge in developing countries.
As to WebOS, that's the major downside of it from my perspective. There's no way to sync your data with your own computer(s), you are forced to sync it to the cloud where you lose all control of what happens to it.
They used that for marketing since the iPhone required a physical connection to iTunes, which it’s slowly breaking away from. Remember, they did sync your music via iTunes in this cat-and-mouse game of spoofing the iPod USB vendor ID. There is no reason HP can’t create their own app that backs up apps, app data and anything else directly to a PC locally the way iDevices do. Hopefully, they create a solution that is the best of both worlds between convenient cloud and fast and reliable local connections.
You’re probably right for the most part, but I bet there will be plenty of apps that will be designed to be run locally with or without an internet connection, just like with other apps. I think what Google is doing is the first real chance we’ll see for MS to lose consumer marketshare. Someone can use a notebook, netbook or even a “PC appliance” to run Google Docs and other things without ever connecting to the internet. This could be huge in developing countries.
It could be huge in developing countries, although, it's disturbing that for the less affluent to access the benefits of technology they'll be forced to give up their privacy. Privacy and Liberty are inextricably entwined, and one cannot exist without the other.
But, putting aside considerations of developing nations, if you were going to use a web app that, once downloaded, ran entirely locally and stored all your data locally (and again, I think these will be few and far between) wouldn't you just rather use a native non-browser based app that better takes advantage of the capabilities of your operating system and better integrates with it?
They used that for marketing since the iPhone required a physical connection to iTunes, which it’s slowly breaking away from. Remember, they did sync your music via iTunes in this cat-and-mouse game of spoofing the iPod USB vendor ID. There is no reason HP can’t create their own app that backs up apps, app data and anything else directly to a PC locally the way iDevices do. Hopefully, they create a solution that is the best of both worlds between convenient cloud and fast and reliable local connections.
Well, they also did it because they had no money to develop desktop sync software. And Palm had also been inching away from supporting desktop sync for a number of years. A major mistake, in my opinion, since the desktop sync/Palm Desktop software was one of the best things about using a Palm OS device, back in the old days. It will be interesting to see what HP does in this regard, although, I suspect they will pretty much stay the course.
Privacy, security, accountability, accessibility, and a host (no pun intended) of other problems. Yes, I think it's best to not let anyone get control of your data. However, if I had to put data in the cloud, I would absolutely choose Apple over Google, primarily because Apple's business model isn't based on controlling information and access to it and on collection personal information solely for the purposes of exploiting it for financial gain. In other words, Apple has less of a vested interest in violating my privacy for financial gain because, unlike Google, that isn't the entire focus of their business. If one has to use a cloud provider, that should be a primary consideration, and other than, say, Black Hat Cloud Services, Google is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel in that regard.
Amen to everything Anonymouse has said in this discussion (unless I missed something egregious!)
Apple seems to have a great approach to the cloud (so far.) Yes, you pay with Apple (MobileMe should cost half what it does) but their incentive is to give you the service you pay for, not to pick your pocket. Essentially this comes from their very user-centered (see my nickname) approach. They start by creating products and services that they would want to use and go from there. If they can offer that product or service and make money, then they do it. If not, they go back to the drawing board. Most companies start with "How can we get people to give us their hard earned cash?" This is a huge difference in approach that makes a huge difference in the product delivered and it's relative value to the user. Call me paranoid but the fact is the more I read, the less I want to use most internet offerings (and that goes double for Google.)
Show me an active CDMA2000 '3G?network that gets faster uploads and downloads than AT&T?s HS*PA ?3G? network, and can do simultaneous voice and data. You can say that Verizon might eventually offer it as the rumours suggest or that EV-DO Rev. B can do it, but I will come back with my own theoretical rhetoric stating the maximum upload and download capabilities of HSDPA and HSUPA which will put any theoretical CDMA2000 network to shame.
CDMA an CDMA2000 are being obsolesced which is why Sprint went with WiMAX and Verizon went with LTE, which is one of the reasons why other countries jumped ship from CDMA to UMTS instead of going with CDMA2000 for 3G, and why AT&T and T-Mobile USA have the advantage of waiting for the LTE HW to mature before pushing an adoption. I think it?s likely that AT&T?s ?3G? will be faster and more power efficient than Verizon and Sprint?s ?4G? for at least a a few years.
You are talking about ev-do being nearly EOL right now --- of course they have slower speed than the other competing technology. That's very different than saying ev-do is garbage when during its 6-7 year period, it did its job perfectly.
Same thing with simultaneous voice and data --- you are only talking about it right now, when ev-do is at its EOL period. Meanwhile WCDMA had video calling from the start 10 years ago --- and when every carriers migrate to 4G, video calling would still be a gimmick.
Verizon had its 10 years of making money, Verizon customers had its 10 years of good service, and Qualcomm had its 10 years of making money. Everybody is happy except you who wants to make an argument out of it.
Apple seems to have a great approach to the cloud (so far.)
Apple is an ad company now --- so they are in the same boat as Google.