|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
|
Author: OxfordOxford Date: Sep 18, 2007 20:36
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: DTCDTC Date: Sep 18, 2007 20:31
Oxford wrote:
> Just like I thought, WiFi is going to rule the airwaves, not 3G.
Another lame misinterpretation by an industry outsider with no professional
experience in the communications landscape.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: RealityReality Date: Sep 18, 2007 20:39
> Looks like the slow 3G network died a terrible death today. Jobs said
> it's a "power hog", so basically that's the end of the 3G approach for
> all cellphone companies worldwide going forward.
>
> Just like I thought, WiFi is going to rule the airwaves, not 3G.
>
> That is...
>
> Unless 3.5G / 4G, gets MUCH better about power consumption or Jobs will
> simply put them ALL out of business. Take your pick!
>
> Cell companies are very inefficient, they've never had the competitive
> envirnoment that the computer industry has known, so Jobs and Co will
> steamroll them unless they get their act together soon.
>
> Companies that don't hold iPhone contracts are basically dead in the
> water at this point, especially now that 3G has been rendered obsolete.
> Cellphone companies are going to have to scramble to catch up with what ...
|
| Show full article (2.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: DTCDTC Date: Sep 18, 2007 20:35
Oxford wrote:
> yes, the cell industry is in a state of "collapse", there is no way they
> can compete against the iPhone AND free / or closed WiFi.
Citations please....
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RealityReality Date: Sep 18, 2007 20:50
> Oxford wrote:
>> yes, the cell industry is in a state of "collapse", there is no way they can compete against the iPhone AND free / or
>> closed WiFi.
>
> Citations please....
How could he?
It's hard to cite COMPLETE BULLSHIT.
Or ore they just insane delusions.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: OxfordOxford Date: Sep 18, 2007 21:20
"Reality" sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
> NEVER be ubiquitous (like you contend) is WiFi. Now, wimax
> may be something to watch, but wifi certainly will NEVER be a
> replacement for cellular.
ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
wimax is wifi, the cell network is dead, just as i've been saying.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RealityReality Date: Sep 18, 2007 22:25
> "Reality" sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
>>> NEVER be ubiquitous (like you contend) is WiFi. Now, wimax
>> may be something to watch, but wifi certainly will NEVER be a
>> replacement for cellular.
>
> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
>
> wimax is wifi, the cell network is dead, just as i've been saying.
Again demonstrating his complete and TOTAL ignorance....
WiFi operates on 2 UNLICENSED frequencies. Same as many other devices.
Like cordless phones, baby monitors, etc, etc.... It is NOT an ideal RF situation.
WiMax's implementation in the US will be using LICENSED frequencies.
(Just like good old cellular Oxford.)
The two are very definitly NOT the same. And, Sprint-Nextel will be building
wimax out as an overlay to existing CELLULAR infastructure. Clearwire also
colocates on existing cellular infastructure the majority of the time.
|
| Show full article (2.75Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Peter HayesPeter Hayes Date: Sep 19, 2007 02:22
Reality sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER CHANGEABLE
> battery, Apple has it's ASS hanging waaaay out on a limb.
I really can't understand why Apple didn't make the battery user
changeable. The trick is to incorporate the battery compartment into the
cosmetic design, not dismiss it as irrelevent.
> This "3G bad" shit is nothing more than double speak. Apple fucked up and
> now CAN'T support a better technology, because of battery life and
> potential pissed off customers.
And it certainly is a better technology.
This will come back to bite Apple in a few months because the
competition won't stand idle. The iPhone US launch put the 3G community
on notice, and power efficient chipsets are probably being fabbed at
this moment.
> Your infallible Apple - ISN'T. A BIG fuck up has been made
> and this is simply spin control, nothing more.
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ZnUZnU Date: Sep 19, 2007 11:58
In article ,
"Reality" sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
[snip]
> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER
> CHANGEABLE battery, Apple has it's ASS hanging waaaay out on a limb.
What fraction of cell phone users actually carry multiple batteries
around? I'd be surprised if it was a full 1%%.
Why do so many of Apple's detractors completely ignore the way real
users actually use products?
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
|
| |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dennis FergusonDennis Ferguson Date: Sep 19, 2007 12:10
On 2007-09-19, Oxford mac.com> wrote:> John C. Randolph nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Looks like the slow 3G network died a terrible death today. Jobs said
>>> it's a "power hog", so basically that's the end of the 3G approach for
>>> all cellphone companies worldwide going forward.
>>
>> No, he said that *today's* 3G chipsets are power hogs, which they are.
>> Check again in six months. The first generation of 802.11 chips drew
>> a lot more power than today's equivalents do.
>
> Yes, and if the 3G group can rise to meet Steve's challenge they have a
> chance, but if not, they will be superseded. There is no reason a faster
> protocol needs to be power hungry, it's poor chip design that's all.
Actually there's a reason higher data rates require higher power; google
"Shannon capacity". You can use low power WiFi if you don't need to talk
to access points that are further away than across the room, but at the
distances 3G operates over WiFi would require significantly more power.
Dennis Ferguson
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
