- Last Active
That wasn’t the case for two decades. People watched ESPN like some watch cable news today. From Sports Center to inside baseball to hydroplane racing….anyone interested in sports could watch almost any time of day. ESPN is now more interested in politics than sports. Even their MNF broadcast is terrible compared to 15 years ago.
In the past few days I watched both the men's and women's Wimbledon finals live as well as some of the semi-final matches and the Euro 2020 semi-finals and championship match. ESPN certainly continues to broadcast compelling sports events to the sports fan with wide interests.
If your interests are very limited, I can see how you might find the content that you aren't interested in as a drag. But over the decades, ESPN has basically evolved as viewers' interests have changed. That's why they remain a major sports broadcaster and are able to secure large TV contracts for some of the world's biggest sporting events.
ESPN also maintains a long tradition of hosting a bunch of irrelevant content, like 75% of all NCAA bowl games. There are about 30 bowl games and maybe 4-5 are meaningful as athletic contests.
NorthwestHunt said:I was the one calling for the past week 5 times a day and I told them exactly how they were doing it, T mobile is there sister company and they run a special porting feature with them, I'm so surprised that it took this long because it got to the point were reps could remember me. Your welcome Ryan Reynolds ~ HW
Mint Mobile is an MVNO that leases access to T-Mobile's cellular towers; Mint Mobile doesn't have their own towers. Most likely this is a multi-year contract but there's nothing preventing Mint Mobile to switching to another carrier for access (like AT&T) when the contract is up.
StraightTalk is another MVNO that has historically rented from T-Mobile as well; in fact, at one point StraightTalk was using AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon towers for access.
The porting system needs T-Mobile's involvement because it's T-Mobile's network.
lkrupp said:Still don’t understand why a smartphone needs 5G speeds. Home broadband, yes; smartphone no.
I'm guessing you are old and you don't stream live video from your smartphone. A lot of kids do. There's also stuff like uploading 4K video. iPhones -- like many other smartphone brands -- has offered 4K video recording for years. Note that a lot of YouTubers have been shooting, editing and uploading 4K video from their smartphones FOR YEARS. Last year Apple started offering Dolby Vision on the iPhone 12 Pro models.
The old paradigm of taking your phone home, plugging into your computer to transfer video and firing up a desktop video editing application before finally using your terrestrial broadband Internet connection is obsolete.
Perhaps more important the mobile operators want more of their users to switch to 5G networks which handle more connections than 4G. It's not just about speed, it's also about congestion.
This is particularly important in high-density places like sports arenas, stadiums, public landmarks, public transportation hubs. While a ten-second Twitter or Instagram might not seem like a lot of data, multiply that by 60,000 spectators at some event and that's A LOT of data.
And there's nothing new about this. This was the same thing when 3G migrated to 4G LTE. People started shooting 1080p video. More people were posting photographs taken with devices that were generating more pixels and larger file sizes. And people like you said the same thing back then.
So yes, there are usage cases outside of your bubble world. It's not 2011.
And guess what? This will happen again. Mobile devices will start shooting 8K video one day, mobile networks will need to build more capacity. And for sure when 6G rolls around there will be someone like you asking the same question just like you did today, just like others did years ago.
Heck, maybe you were one of those people twenty years ago who said that no one needs a mobile telephone.
KTR said:I guess they don’t want apple to become to dominant ?
In April, LG announced that they were exiting the smartphone business.
Stocking iPhones in their retail stores isn't going to impact LG's smartphone sales. It would drive foot traffic into their bricks-and-mortar stores and at least they could make some profit selling iPhones at retail which is a bigger margin than what they were getting from their own mobile product line. This would also generate complementary sales of iPhone accessories.
With this sales arrangement dead in the water, it appears LG will make almost no mobile hardware revenue from their home retail stores.
danox said:mcdave said:Microsoft just aren’t good at products, they’ve always lacked the cohesive design capability good products require. They’re the IT equivalent of meccano (we can’t make it do something useful but maybe you can).
However, it is my belief that Apple can move a substantial portion of its data center operations away from x64 architecture hardware and to their own custom silicon which is vastly superior in terms of performance-per-watt. This may include custom in-house SoCs that are largely CPU and machine learning cores (no graphics cores) and are optimized for specific tasks compared to a general purpose CPU from Intel or AMD.
Not marketing this special silicon gives Apple a competitive advantage in terms of operational efficiency.
If Apple could disrupt Microsoft in the server market, it would be by reducing their reliance on Microsoft server software (which I do not believe they have widely implemented) or Microsoft cloud services (also not believed to be widely used by Apple).