Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 12:04 PM
Think we've moved on some what from the crappy cameras in phones
My latest phone has a 3.2 MP cam - with optical zoom.
In fact - its better than my camera was last year!
A camera isnt only about MP. The weakest link of the camera in phones is the optics. You just cant get good pics from a camera phone due to the limited formfactor, even if you had 3200 MP.
So yes, in a foreseeable furture, the cameras in phones are crap.
My latest phone has a 3.2 MP cam - with optical zoom.
In fact - its better than my camera was last year!
A camera isnt only about MP. The weakest link of the camera in phones is the optics. You just cant get good pics from a camera phone due to the limited formfactor, even if you had 3200 MP.
So yes, in a foreseeable furture, the cameras in phones are crap.
KeriJane
Mar 19, 11:24 AM
Hi munkery
Thank you for the helpful link. It explained a lot.
I was wondering why Linux and OSX are virus-resistant and the page you linked to explains it well.
The old "market share" argument didn't make sense to me because:
1- the fame associated with writing the first major Mac (or Linux) virus would be immense.
2- there's at least some hatred of Apple out there amongst the technically proficient. (geeks). I've met such a person..... Very smart, very pro-Linux and if you mention you like Macs or own one.... BOOM! :eek:
That guy and probably lots of others really, really hates Macs. If he could he'd take down Apple in an instant.
3- if the conspiracy theories are true, the AV companies and/or Microsoft would love to shatter Apple's image of invulnerability to viruses. Even if they aren't actively trying to develop one, they wouldn't mind it if someone else did.
Thanks to all for the insights,
Keri
Thank you for the helpful link. It explained a lot.
I was wondering why Linux and OSX are virus-resistant and the page you linked to explains it well.
The old "market share" argument didn't make sense to me because:
1- the fame associated with writing the first major Mac (or Linux) virus would be immense.
2- there's at least some hatred of Apple out there amongst the technically proficient. (geeks). I've met such a person..... Very smart, very pro-Linux and if you mention you like Macs or own one.... BOOM! :eek:
That guy and probably lots of others really, really hates Macs. If he could he'd take down Apple in an instant.
3- if the conspiracy theories are true, the AV companies and/or Microsoft would love to shatter Apple's image of invulnerability to viruses. Even if they aren't actively trying to develop one, they wouldn't mind it if someone else did.
Thanks to all for the insights,
Keri
logandzwon
May 3, 10:33 AM
So, with TB moving across the whole line, how long before we can buy a (Data | Display) splitter for TB so that people using the new systems can use external displays and the data connection at the same time without the PITA of daily chaining? Hope before I buy a new system :/
Personally I'm a huge fan of daisy chaining. Less devices, less cables, less clutter. You just attach each device to the next.
What is it you have an aversion to?
Personally I'm a huge fan of daisy chaining. Less devices, less cables, less clutter. You just attach each device to the next.
What is it you have an aversion to?
jz1492
Nov 13, 06:26 PM
Ah, but Apple won't let us sell it in our own store!
I guess you could say "There's a droid for that", but following my analogy it would be just like a swap meet with a big seller taking up the central aisles.
But that doesn't mean that now you can reach everyone. The Android swap meet excludes BlackBerry, Palm, Symbian, WinMo and Apple customers. You end up with a smaller customer base, with such a diverse set of user needs that you end up pulling your hair out trying to meet every Android phone manufacturer's device specs. :confused:
I guess you could say "There's a droid for that", but following my analogy it would be just like a swap meet with a big seller taking up the central aisles.
But that doesn't mean that now you can reach everyone. The Android swap meet excludes BlackBerry, Palm, Symbian, WinMo and Apple customers. You end up with a smaller customer base, with such a diverse set of user needs that you end up pulling your hair out trying to meet every Android phone manufacturer's device specs. :confused:
Peikko
Apr 30, 08:33 PM
MSFT has not had a real hit in forever.
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
Can't be bothered to check anything but the most recent past, so...
Kinect Confirmed As Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device (http://community.guinnessworldrecords.com/_Kinect-Confirmed-As-Fastest-Selling-Consumer-Electronics-Device/blog/3376939/7691.html)
Guinness World Records, the global authority on record breaking, today confirm that the Kinect for the Xbox 360 is the Fastest-Selling Consumer Electronics Device. The hardware, that allows controller-free gaming, sold through an average of 133,333 units per day, for a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale from 4 November 2010 to 3 January 2011.
The sales figures outstrip both the iPhone and the iPad for the equivalent periods after launch. [...]
Newfiebill
May 3, 11:45 AM
All I need to do now is wait a couple of months for the bugs to be worked out (if any) and it comes with Lion pre-installed. However the "WAIT" will be hard...:eek:
Bawstun
Apr 20, 01:03 PM
This is really, really, REALLY bad for Apple. Bad publicity - and quite alarming.
I've had every model iPhone, had iMacs, iPads, iPods and even I am concerned. This is not okay.
Lawsuits are coming.
Just wonder how long it will take and if it will be class action or not. Days? Weeks? Months? Probably not months.
I've had every model iPhone, had iMacs, iPads, iPods and even I am concerned. This is not okay.
Lawsuits are coming.
Just wonder how long it will take and if it will be class action or not. Days? Weeks? Months? Probably not months.
centauratlas
Mar 29, 11:46 AM
Exactly. The sad thing is that people pay them to predict something 4 years out like this. In a vibrant market like this, there is no way predictions 4 years out will be right. Maybe 1 year could be close.
I shall come back to this prediction 4 years from now, and laugh at how dumb the prediction is.
I shall come back to this prediction 4 years from now, and laugh at how dumb the prediction is.
phil989
Sep 6, 04:59 AM
I'm not sure that this is an entirely novel thought, but I thought I would test my psychic abilities a little.
The mac mini seems like the target for movies here, not iPods. There's a lot of talk about Airport express and how that might be the killer hardware, but there's more to it than that. Apple is competing against rental stores and netflix to watch movies. No one is just going to want to watch movies on an iPod, they are going to want it on they're TV. So why not have a network box that saves and plays the movies that is attatched to your TV? The mini is already positioned to do exactly that. No keyboard or monitor, maybe just a remote to run Front Row.
Download the movie to the mini, watch it on TV at your convenience. Mac video on demand. Start doing that with TV shows and all of a sudden, Tivo has got a serious contender, too.
The hard bit will be having full-quality movies sent to your home, VOD style.
The new iPod is a phone. There may be a video ipod, but I doubt that it's a main target for the movies.
I have this wonderful feeling that it'll be even cooler than this, but this is what I am expecting.
Dr. Z.
I like the sound of that!! as for downloading the movies, the bittorrent protocol is almost perfect, but maybe a customized apple algorithm, because the beauty of services such as sky box office (no ones mentioned this so far) is you only have to wait 15 - 30 mins max for your film.
realistically, a 6gb or heaven help us 12gb download will take absolutely ages, even if it maxes out your connection. so streaming the media would perhaps be the way forward, although i dont know enough about the bittorrent protocol to fully understand the effects of prioritizing consecutive pieces.
Phil
The mac mini seems like the target for movies here, not iPods. There's a lot of talk about Airport express and how that might be the killer hardware, but there's more to it than that. Apple is competing against rental stores and netflix to watch movies. No one is just going to want to watch movies on an iPod, they are going to want it on they're TV. So why not have a network box that saves and plays the movies that is attatched to your TV? The mini is already positioned to do exactly that. No keyboard or monitor, maybe just a remote to run Front Row.
Download the movie to the mini, watch it on TV at your convenience. Mac video on demand. Start doing that with TV shows and all of a sudden, Tivo has got a serious contender, too.
The hard bit will be having full-quality movies sent to your home, VOD style.
The new iPod is a phone. There may be a video ipod, but I doubt that it's a main target for the movies.
I have this wonderful feeling that it'll be even cooler than this, but this is what I am expecting.
Dr. Z.
I like the sound of that!! as for downloading the movies, the bittorrent protocol is almost perfect, but maybe a customized apple algorithm, because the beauty of services such as sky box office (no ones mentioned this so far) is you only have to wait 15 - 30 mins max for your film.
realistically, a 6gb or heaven help us 12gb download will take absolutely ages, even if it maxes out your connection. so streaming the media would perhaps be the way forward, although i dont know enough about the bittorrent protocol to fully understand the effects of prioritizing consecutive pieces.
Phil
ezekielrage_99
Sep 5, 12:28 AM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
Yeah there's very little point to add something to your product lines which will compete with your existing products/services unless you are going for full market control aka De Beers.
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
Yeah there's very little point to add something to your product lines which will compete with your existing products/services unless you are going for full market control aka De Beers.
Dmac77
Apr 24, 11:40 PM
I cannot even begin to describe how much i hate these idiotic people. They just enrage me. Anyone who has been doing 85mph+ on the highway and then has to slow down to under 70 knows what I mean.
Today I was doing 90mph+ in the far left lane, for miles everyone moved out of the way for me. Then all the sudden I come up on this minivan with "Baby on Board, "I Love Children," "Being Nice is the #1 Rule," etc. bumper stickers and magnets. The woman was doing under 65mph would not move out of my way (and there was plenty of space). When I tried to push her, flash brights, honk, etc. she decided to brake check me. Now, not moving over is one thing, but trying to teach me a lesson when I tell you that you're in my way and that you can move over, is just asking me to screw you over.
I drove behind her for a few miles, and then when the opportunity stuck, I shot a gap to pass her, made sure she couldn't move over to another lane (besides the service lane) and I slammed off my brakes (I swear I saw a squirrel run across the highway;)), she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me. I guarantee she'll never try to brake check someone or force the speed limit on them again. I seriously hope she or her damn baby got whiplash. (NO LECTURES PLEASE, THEY WILL ALL BE IGNORED)
I seriously wish that .50 cal guns would be options on cars so that I could just blow up people like her.
-Don
Today I was doing 90mph+ in the far left lane, for miles everyone moved out of the way for me. Then all the sudden I come up on this minivan with "Baby on Board, "I Love Children," "Being Nice is the #1 Rule," etc. bumper stickers and magnets. The woman was doing under 65mph would not move out of my way (and there was plenty of space). When I tried to push her, flash brights, honk, etc. she decided to brake check me. Now, not moving over is one thing, but trying to teach me a lesson when I tell you that you're in my way and that you can move over, is just asking me to screw you over.
I drove behind her for a few miles, and then when the opportunity stuck, I shot a gap to pass her, made sure she couldn't move over to another lane (besides the service lane) and I slammed off my brakes (I swear I saw a squirrel run across the highway;)), she had to veer off of the road to avoid hitting me. I guarantee she'll never try to brake check someone or force the speed limit on them again. I seriously hope she or her damn baby got whiplash. (NO LECTURES PLEASE, THEY WILL ALL BE IGNORED)
I seriously wish that .50 cal guns would be options on cars so that I could just blow up people like her.
-Don
izzle22
Sep 26, 11:06 AM
Wonderful... why would Apple choose the carrier with the worst coverage and customer service (well, besides Sprint)??? T-Mobile or Verizon would be better choices...
You know, if Cingular didn't spend the $$$ to get all of the cool phones first, I think they would be out of business by now... If someone has had a different experience with Cingular, please let me know ;)
I still think Apple should go the Mobile Virtual Network Operator route ala Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN, etc.
Well, out here Cingular has waaaaaay better coverage than T-Mobile or Verizon, so it's really a matter of where you are located. It really doesn't matter who thinks what about any phone co. Apple will do what Apple wants and there is no reason to sit here and complain about mobile providers all day long when we don't even know if there is an "iPhone". I travel all across the U.S. all year long and I have Cingular with no coverage problems anywhere and customer service has been fine whenever I needed them.
You know, if Cingular didn't spend the $$$ to get all of the cool phones first, I think they would be out of business by now... If someone has had a different experience with Cingular, please let me know ;)
I still think Apple should go the Mobile Virtual Network Operator route ala Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN, etc.
Well, out here Cingular has waaaaaay better coverage than T-Mobile or Verizon, so it's really a matter of where you are located. It really doesn't matter who thinks what about any phone co. Apple will do what Apple wants and there is no reason to sit here and complain about mobile providers all day long when we don't even know if there is an "iPhone". I travel all across the U.S. all year long and I have Cingular with no coverage problems anywhere and customer service has been fine whenever I needed them.
carfac
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
Go away- just go away.
Can we all just agree not to talk about this thing until it is actually out? There is so much BS about this thing, maybe it does not deserve anything until two weeks after it is out... if ever.
So, we have gone from some prankster photoshopping his Apple wet dreams to official macrumors photoshoping up rumors (shakes head)...
Can we all just agree not to talk about this thing until it is actually out? There is so much BS about this thing, maybe it does not deserve anything until two weeks after it is out... if ever.
So, we have gone from some prankster photoshopping his Apple wet dreams to official macrumors photoshoping up rumors (shakes head)...
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
jessica.
Sep 20, 07:34 AM
Wow. Good news for Apple and the future of the iTS in getting more studios on board. :)
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
GOOD! I think the HD DVD is out of control already. The future isn't in DVDs in my opinion, it's in digital formats. The iTV is just the first to prove it.
I am glad this movie thing is successful. I like the lower prices on new releases but I wish I could burn one copy to dvd so I can watch it anywhere.
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
GOOD! I think the HD DVD is out of control already. The future isn't in DVDs in my opinion, it's in digital formats. The iTV is just the first to prove it.
I am glad this movie thing is successful. I like the lower prices on new releases but I wish I could burn one copy to dvd so I can watch it anywhere.
MasterTick
Apr 4, 12:51 PM
Coming from a "Gun Person" (Own a HK .45 USP Tactical w/ GEMTECH Suppressor)
...All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being. I only hope that the guard did not instigate the shooting.
If you read the article you would see it was justified.
...All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being. I only hope that the guard did not instigate the shooting.
If you read the article you would see it was justified.
sisyphus
Sep 10, 09:07 PM
With people putting off for the "next big thing" I wonder how many people will end up buying nothing ;)
Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(
Well here at work I could replace 4 PC draughting workstations with a Conroe based system. We already have 23" monitors so we are not going to purchase iMacs, and while Mac Pro's are nice they are too expensive for us... A $1500 headless system would do wonders! (and yes the mini is too little).
If Apple cannot release such a system we will have to continue purchasing PCs... :(
dudemac
Mar 23, 06:14 PM
I actually agree. Pull 'em. It may be censorship, but it's dangerous not to.
Freedom has a lot of risk involved. This does nothing more than negates the illegal check points. I don't care what the argument is. This is nothing more than an internal checkpoint that is illegal. If you are old enough to remember the 80's then you will probably recall how the eastern block communists countries were portrayed on TV. And we the good guys would never do things that they were doing "over there"! But alas there is no soviet union so I guess that makes it ok to do it now.
Just remember this safety while a concern can turn in to a prison that no one can get out of. Because the safest position is to have no choice. And without choice you are a slave. So enjoy your servitude.
Freedom has a lot of risk involved. This does nothing more than negates the illegal check points. I don't care what the argument is. This is nothing more than an internal checkpoint that is illegal. If you are old enough to remember the 80's then you will probably recall how the eastern block communists countries were portrayed on TV. And we the good guys would never do things that they were doing "over there"! But alas there is no soviet union so I guess that makes it ok to do it now.
Just remember this safety while a concern can turn in to a prison that no one can get out of. Because the safest position is to have no choice. And without choice you are a slave. So enjoy your servitude.
Silentwave
Sep 10, 06:12 PM
Maybe Steve will be using the new iChat Theater features of Leopard to do his keynote presentation ;)
Ryth
Apr 25, 07:35 PM
But, I didn't "jump" immediately - I always wait a couple of months to see what issues develop with the product line (the 17" range seems to have some graphics issues evidently, which seem to be resolved now) - BUT, with this rumor, do I plump down $4k for a maxed-out MBP now or wait until this new case design ?!?!?!
I would wait. Considering Lion is coming out also, you might as well wait for the next refresh which I'm sure will be optimized for Lion.
I would wait. Considering Lion is coming out also, you might as well wait for the next refresh which I'm sure will be optimized for Lion.
vand0576
Sep 5, 01:03 PM
The reason for the 1-3 week delay in the Extreme Base Station is due to the new European regulations on certain chemicals going into effect.
But the online store that I linked to (www.apple.com/store) reflects products that are sold for U.S. customers. What are European regulations going to do in the States?
But the online store that I linked to (www.apple.com/store) reflects products that are sold for U.S. customers. What are European regulations going to do in the States?
batistuta
Mar 22, 05:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
What is it with the 24"? I would like to see something larger than 27 (as I have 30" already). Mini refresh would be nice - then I'd keep my 30".
They need to do it soon or people will wait for Lion before upgrading their hardware.
What is it with the 24"? I would like to see something larger than 27 (as I have 30" already). Mini refresh would be nice - then I'd keep my 30".
They need to do it soon or people will wait for Lion before upgrading their hardware.
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:14 AM
Are you sure? Cause people are claiming that its not in the ToS/ToC.
Section 4b: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
Section 4b: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
DavidLeblond
Sep 5, 02:12 PM
I'm hoping for iMacs because I could care less about downloading Movies. Hell the only TV I download are the free eps. Unless you can get me 5.1 surround, DVD quality for a monthly fee that is less than Netflix... well, Netflix is still king to me. :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment