Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> >> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after
>> >> he's spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to
>> >> WiFi) and would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
>> >
>> > this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??,
>>
>> You said they would never use 3g.
>
> yes, not in its current form. it's abundantly clear the current 3G
> chipset isn't up to Apple's engineering standards so they can't use
> it.
Again- not what you originally said. You said that there was no need
for 3G on the iPhone and that Apple would never use the technology.
You were wrong- admit it.
>
>> > but they are working hard
>> > to fix the current 3G chip design first,
>>
>> No they're not- a real technology comapny will be providing the chip.
>
> Apple is one of the top engineering firms in the world. Remember when
> they had to go into Intel and clean up their design processes? Apple
> is the primary master of small electronics in the world. Nobody in the
> PC side, MP3 side or Phone side can measure up to their level of
> skills with chip design. If 3G is fixable, only Apple has the ability
> to do it. If not, 4G or WiMax will be used.
"Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
calls a 3G Phone on a Chip ... It will be available next year in bulk
for $23 apiece."
That doesn't look like Apple to me.
>
>> > then helping AT&T build out
>> > the network if Steve gives the go ahead.
>>
>> False.
>
> You have no clue do you Cozmic, quick talking out your ass and deal
> with the facts.
>
I am dealing with the facts- Apple has no input or control over the
network.
>> > Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may
>> > go with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so
>> > the Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until
>> > they can move forward.
>>
>> Wait a minute- I don't see your free wifi on that list. Are you
>> saying that wifi will be dead soon?
>
> WiFi remains the primary data access method for iPhone users since
> it's around twice as fast as 3G. Stick with facts Cozmic.
> They are going to LTE for 4G which is the GSM upgrade to 4G, not the US
> CDMA upgrade to 4G.
While it's an upgrade to UMTS, the GSM 3G standard, keep in mind that these
advanced data standards have little to do with the original TDMA-based GSM
spec, and
are actually "wideband CDMA."
> You might not want to call it switching to GSM,
> maybe evolving to the future GSM would be the way to put it, but in the
> end Verizon will be on GSM.
The irony, of course, is back when GSM adopted W-CDMA as the GSM 3G standard,
many people posted on these NGs that GSM carriers were switching to CDMA!
> Really?
>
> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...sooner-rather-
> t
> han-later/
>
> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
> calls a 3G Phone on a Chip ... It will be available next year in bulk
> for $23 apiece."
yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.
> That doesn't look like Apple to me.
ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple.
In article <nKg4j.134$Zj.51@fe087.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> While it's an upgrade to UMTS, the GSM 3G standard, keep in mind that these
> advanced data standards have little to do with the original TDMA-based GSM
> spec, and
> are actually "wideband CDMA."
That is true but the essence of the matter is that most of the worlds
carriers will be evolving to the same 4G standard with Verizon's
choice.
> The irony, of course, is back when GSM adopted W-CDMA as the GSM 3G standard,
> many people posted on these NGs that GSM carriers were switching to CDMA!
Which meant little since the US CDMA and W-CDMA were not compatible.
But now Verizon and the GSM carriers will be evolving to the same 4G
standard. I prefer to say evolving rather than switching since from my
reading it does appear that the carriers can evolve to LTE from both US
CDMA and W-CDMA.
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> Really?
>>
>> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...sooner-rather-
>> t
>> han-later/
>>
>> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
>> calls a 3G Phone on a Chip ... It will be available next year in bulk
>> for $23 apiece."
>
> yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.
Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the
earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away.
>
>> That doesn't look like Apple to me.
>
> ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple.
>
> >> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
> >> calls a 3G Phone on a Chip ... It will be available next year in bulk
> >> for $23 apiece."
> >
> > yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.
>
> Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the
> earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away.
how do you know that? if apple helps broadcom meet it's engineering
goals, it could happen in as many as 44 days. Remember the biggest
electronics event in on the west coast "macworld" happens on Jan 15th.
the iPhone is already far and away the best, highest revenue producing
phone of all time. got back from a client yesterday that already had 2,
but the mother said her 6 year old daughter was crying to get one of her
own for christmas. wow...
> >> That doesn't look like Apple to me.
> >
> > ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple.
> >
>
> Cite?
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-9E90F8.13185401122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> >> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated
>> >> device it calls a 3G Phone on a Chip ... It will be available
>> >> next year in bulk for $23 apiece."
>> >
>> > yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.
>>
>> Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the
>> earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away.
>
> how do you know that?
It's a publicly stated fact.
> if apple helps broadcom meet it's engineering
> goals, it could happen in as many as 44 days. Remember the biggest
> electronics event in on the west coast "macworld" happens on Jan 15th.
Never happen.
>
> the iPhone is already far and away the best, highest revenue producing
> phone of all time. got back from a client yesterday that already had
> 2, but the mother said her 6 year old daughter was crying to get one
> of her own for christmas. wow...
>
So, Apple is greedy. That kind of blows your whole portrayal of them.
On Dec 1, 11:05 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> Oxford <linuxloves...@superart.com> wrote:
>
> > > You never qualified it when you said that "Apple will never use 3G".
> > > Therefore, you can't qualify it now.
>
> > oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are
> > coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be
> > used in a quality based product.
>
> Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're
> functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment.
Which includes the chip on which the 3G is implemented.
> You said the iPhone would never do 3G. You are now trying to backtrack.
>
> You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you?
And saying that while using the "X-No-Archive" command to try to avoid
having your words recorded for posterity makes you a coward.
For posterity, here's your posts hidden headers:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com !uns-
out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.us enetserver.com!
fe49.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.ce llular.attws
Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network
Organization: Nasty Designs
References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j.
6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
<Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
x-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
Lines: 17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:05:29 EST
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:05:31 -0500
On Dec 1, 1:58 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article
> <linuxlovesosx-BF0DD9.09093001122...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <linuxloves...@superart.com> wrote:
>
> > > Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're
> > > functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment.
>
> > not entirely, it's currently poor chip engineering.
>
> Poor battery engineering, more likely.
Oddly enough, Apple is using the same Li-Ion package as the rest of
industry. This makes this cowardly troll's "speculation" clearly
wrong.
> Gee, plenty of other devices don't have a problem with battery life. I
> wonder why the iPhone does.
>
> Oh, wait--bad engineering of the power system, from the battery on up.
>
> Never mind.
For posterity:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out02b.usenets erver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com!
in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.u senetserver.com!
fe49.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.ce llular.attws
Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network
Organization: Nasty Designs
References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j.
6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
<Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx- BF0DD9.09093001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
x-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <elmop-F7ED83.13585401122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
Lines: 17
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:58:53 EST
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:58:54 -0500
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1-db95ea14c...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > Poor battery engineering, more likely.
>
> > Oddly enough, Apple is using the same Li-Ion package as the rest of
> > industry. This makes this cowardly troll's "speculation" clearly
> > wrong.
>
> Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.)
Wrong, again.
> Or poor/slipshod engineering overall.
What's that phrase you just used?
Oh yeah:
"Moving the Goalposts".
Hypocrite.
> Let's face it: Steve Jobs's mania for batteries
> that can't be taken out and replaced by the end user was an engineering
> decision made by a non-engineer, made by a marketing huckster, and
> forced him to come up with some bullshit about how "we don't want to do
> 3G because of battery life".
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, so I'll not begrudge
you if you happened to get lucky on getting a couple of points correct
- - but it is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter if the battery is
user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the
available power too quickly.
My BB has a user replaceable battery ... and it isn't particularly
convenient to do. Its not like pulling a couple of AA's out of a
digital camera or GPS (my Garmin sucks power a tad more than I like).
> When you make bad decisions, you have to face their consequences.
Agreed, and you, being an anonymous coward troll, hiding behind X-No-
Archive, have made a bad decision. Now do as you say and face its
consequences.
BTW, here's something topical for everyone ... except you ... to read
and appreciate:
On Dec 1, 6:06 pm, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article
> <27c463c1-ef3a-4715-92a4-2768af811...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you?
>
> > And saying that while using the "X-No-Archive" command to try to avoid
> > having your words recorded for posterity makes you a coward.
>
> Ummmmm.....no, not at all.
Your actions reveal your claims to be lies.
-hh
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out04b.usenets erver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com!uns-
out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.us enetserver.com!
fe62.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.ce llular.attws
Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network
Organization: Nasty Designs
References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j.
6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
<Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <27c463c1- ef3a-4715-92a4-2768af811058@w28g2000...oglegroups.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
x-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <elmop-34231F.18062501122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
Lines: 10
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:06:24 EST
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:06:25 -0500
On Dec 2, 8:28 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop @nastydesigns.com>
wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > because it doesn't matter if the battery is
> > user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the
> > available power too quickly.
>
> The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly
> for any other 3G unit, asshole.
In other words, *all* of the 3G chips have poor efficiency, which
means no differentiation in technology alternatives *within* 3G.
> That's the whole point.
Wrong, because the issue of power consumption of 3G was relative to
2G.
And 2G does have substantially different power consumption, but also
lower bandwidth. As such, the trade-off is a classical one of
capability versus capacity.
> No moving of goalposts here.
Only in your mind, when your eyes are closed.
-hh
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out03b.usenets erver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.u senetserver.com!
in03.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.u senetserver.com!
fe01.usenetserver.com.POSTED!7c724125!not-for-mail
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.cellular.cingular,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.ce llular.attws
Subject: Re: New iPhones to use 3G network
Organization: Nasty Designs
References: <hidden-022A57.10563630112007@news.giganews.com> <5%04j.
6588$BP6.2771@fe105.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-130B91.22393630112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>
<Xns99F8E70AC4F7isheforreal@216.196.97.142> <linuxlovesosx- D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-672AF9.08073301122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
<linuxlovesosx-78704E.07552001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>
<elmop-D8F511.11053101122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <linuxlovesosx- BF0DD9.09093001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net> <elmop- F7ED83.13585401122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1- db95ea14cfa9@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <elmop- AABC87.18060001122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com> <a05de97c- e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000...oglegroups.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
x-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <elmop-C06598.08283702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>
Lines: 14
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenetserver.com
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:28:35 GMT
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:28:37 -0500
On Dec 2, 9:32 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > > The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly
> > > for any other 3G unit, asshole.
>
> > In other words, *all* of the 3G chips have poor efficiency, which
> > means no differentiation in technology alternatives *within* 3G.
>
> > > That's the whole point.
>
> > Wrong, because the issue of power consumption of 3G was relative to
> > 2G.
>
> > And 2G does have substantially different power consumption, but also
> > lower bandwidth. As such, the trade-off is a classical one of
> > capability versus capacity.
>
> So, asshat, tell us how every other manufacturer manages to make a good
> 3G handset without excuses like "oh, but it takes too much POWER!
> <whine>"?
First, define "good".
> It's a simple question. You can dance around it for everyone's
> enjoyment, or you can answer it for everyone's benefit.
>
> I can only guess which choice you'll make.
It does appear to be a simple question to simpletons.
The reality is that anyone can make & sell a product that has all
sorts of 'features' for consumers to compare. However, merely having
a feature does not automatically translate into good product
usability, due to less overt considerations such as package size/
weight and operational life on a single battery charge that aren't in
the big print on the packaging, and/or aren't noticed by consumers.
For example, look at how frequently a glossy ad for a laptop neglects
to mention its weight. Dell is irritatingly bad at offering this
information.
Personally, if there's some feature on a cellphone that cuts its
effective battery life down to less than 2 days, thanks, but please
offer me a phone without that damn "feature". FWIW, this is one of
the reasons why I personally disagree with the convergence of
cellphone and MP3 player being a "good" idea. While this includes
Apple's iPhone, do note that it also is referring to a lot of other
new cellphones on the market.
What all this means is that perhaps you'll be smart enough to
eventually grok that the cellphone marketplace is currently in the
same marketplace situation where PC word processors were ~25 years
ago, despite the realities of the Pareto Principle.
In article
<a05de97c-e98a-458b-91f1-51cf213bc5e4@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.)
>
>
> Wrong, again.
If anyone is Oxford it is Elmo P. Shagnasty!!! Both handles post like
trolls. I think Oxford and Elmo are some ones idea of a joke. The joke
being to see how stupid the iPhone haters will get. While someone could
possibly be as dumb as Elmo, it is not credible that Oxford could be
for real.
-hh wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:28 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop @nastydesigns.com>
> wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>> because it doesn't matter if the battery is
>>> user-replaceable or not if the current 3G chips suck through the
>>> available power too quickly.
>> The current 3G chips don't suck through the available power too quickly
>> for any other 3G unit, asshole.
>
> In other words, *all* of the 3G chips have poor efficiency, which
> means no differentiation in technology alternatives *within* 3G.
In reality, the 3G chipsets are extremely efficient, with very little
power being used for processing and overhead. Almost all the power goes
directly into transmitting, and that power consumption is inherent to 3G
and chipset improvements can't solve it.
No one took the excuse of 3G chipset inefficiency seriously, and I don't
think Apple ever said such a thing.
There were several reasons that Apple didn't put 3G on the first iPhone,
but none of them were related to the efficiency of 3G chipsets.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> <0ad004cb-6bda-4aa5-baf1-db95ea14cfa9@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>> Poor battery engineering, more likely.
>> Oddly enough, Apple is using the same Li-Ion package as the rest of
>> industry. This makes this cowardly troll's "speculation" clearly
>> wrong.
>
> Sure it is, Oxford. (Yeah, we know it's you.) Or poor/slipshod
> engineering overall. Let's face it: Steve Jobs's mania for batteries
> that can't be taken out and replaced by the end user was an engineering
> decision made by a non-engineer, made by a marketing huckster, and
> forced him to come up with some bullshit about how "we don't want to do
> 3G because of battery life".
SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> In reality, the 3G chipsets are extremely efficient, with very little
> power being used for processing and overhead. Almost all the power goes
> directly into transmitting, and that power consumption is inherent to 3G
> and chipset improvements can't solve it.
So what you're saying is that the power consumption issues of the 3G
chipset are fundamental, and can't be improved upon through 'just'
efficiency: that low hanging fruit is gone. As such, to reduce total
power consumption will require changes in the design objectives such
that less power is needed "at whatever efficiency". For a notional
example, one could cut the total transmission power to reduce power
draw.
> No one took the excuse of 3G chipset inefficiency seriously, and I don't
> think Apple ever said such a thing.
Reportedly, Jobs made the claim in September while in London; see:
In reading it again now, what I see is that we need to remember that
Total Power consumption and Efficiency are interrelated, but they're
also distinct elements of the whole: the battery only cares about
total power draw and not its constituent parts.
In the end, if you're power-limited, you either have to boost
efficiency, cut transmission output, or do some combination of both.
And if you say that all of the efficiency gains have already been
taken, then the only way left to go is to cut the output. There is no
such thing as a free lunch (as I'm learning from some GaN chipset work
I'm funding for '08).
> There were several reasons that Apple didn't put 3G on the first iPhone,
> but none of them were related to the efficiency of 3G chipsets.
There's classically a variety of reasons, some major some minor. As
outsiders, we have no way of knowing for sure what the truth is; all
we have is what is made public, such as SJ's claim and other insights,
such as that patent infringement lawsuit. In general, I'm personally
not so cynical of Apple's general credibility to not believe that
power issues were entirely not an issue, which is what Tickle-Me-Troll-
Elmo is trying to claim.
On 2007-12-01, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 01 Dec 2007 08:50:00 -0500 Charles wrote:
>
>> They are going to LTE for 4G which is the GSM upgrade to 4G, not the US
>> CDMA upgrade to 4G.
>
> While it's an upgrade to UMTS, the GSM 3G standard, keep in mind that these
> advanced data standards have little to do with the original TDMA-based GSM
> spec, and are actually "wideband CDMA."
While the GSM 3G standard used WCDMA for the air interface, 4G LTE
doesn't. It uses OFDM (like 802.11g above 11 Mbps) on the downlink
and something else which I'm too lazy to google on the uplink. CDMA
was originally a low-speed fallback option in the original LTE proposal,
but this was written out (at the demand of operators, who would only
sign up for LTE is IP licensing charges were no more than 5% of equipment
cost) to reduce or eliminate Qualcomm contributions from the patent pool,
since Qualcomm is widely blamed for the fact that IP licensing is apparently
more than 30% of the cost of 3G equipment.
Since the usual suspects seem to be bailing on Qualcomm's 4G alternative,
and since the 4G alternative everyone likes avoids using Qualcomm IP,
it seems like Qualcomm might eventually have to work for a living.
>> You might not want to call it switching to GSM,
>> maybe evolving to the future GSM would be the way to put it, but in the
>> end Verizon will be on GSM.
>
> The irony, of course, is back when GSM adopted W-CDMA as the GSM 3G standard,
> many people posted on these NGs that GSM carriers were switching to CDMA!
It is kind of different this time, though. While the RF protocol is
neither TDMA or WCDMA, LTE is definitely the GSM 4G. I wonder whether
Verizon will introduce CDMA phones with R-UIM slots as part of the
transition.
Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> news:13l0vvveo2hn337@news.supernews.com...
>> Kevin Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No
>>> thanks. By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is
>>> sad. But send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that
>>> $$ rolling in.
>>
>> If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to
>> sue. And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so
>> thoughtfully wrote.
>>
>> Now go away AssHat
> Go ahead and give apple $$$ I was being fair at $$
> Another fanboi defending the iphone. (Must be another AKA Oxturd)
You do realize that all companies must make money or they fail. And I'm
hardly an Apple fanboi. I bought mine when the price of the phone dropped to
be = < the cost of a new iPod + the cost of a new phone. Both of which I
needed.
I'm also noone's sock puppet. Which just the very least research would show.
Tim Smith wrote:
> On 2007-12-02, SMS 斯蒂文• å¤ <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery.
>
> Apple seems to think it does. It says:
>
> "Built-in rechargeable lithium ion battery"
>
> right on the tech specs page at apple.com.
>
Technically it should be called a Lithium-Polymer or LiPo battery.
In article <4755893f$0$84182$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS z溱顶 � <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > On 2007-12-02, SMS 拘�这拘�邰 ¤ <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> The iPhone does not use a Li-Ion battery.
> >
> > Apple seems to think it does. It says:
> >
> > "Built-in rechargeable lithium ion battery"
> >
> > right on the tech specs page at apple.com.
> >
>
> Technically it should be called a Lithium-Polymer or LiPo battery.
And the resulting battery drain should be called LiPo-suction.
the iphone is not a great phone it has a great concept and opened
thedoor for new ideas for cells but apple is all about makeing money and
released the phone way to early and the phone still needs lots of work
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:28:31 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>Kevin Weaver wrote:
>
>> No, I just see how the battery life SUCKS! Friend has one. No thanks.
>> By apple not allowing the end user to change there own is sad. But
>> send it in to apple for a replacement. Have to keep that $$ rolling
>> in.
>
>If the battery burns up in your pocket at least you will know who to sue.
>And luckily that will be Apple and they have the $$$ as you so thoughtfully
>wrote.
>
>Now go away AssHat
>
What is the expected battery life of the included battery before it
needs to be replaced (how many charge cycles)?
What is Apple going to do when thousands of people need their
batteries replaced around the same time and these people start
complaining about not being able to use their phone while they ship it
to Apple for a battery replacement?
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:18:54 -0700, Oxford
<linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
>CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> >> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
>> >> calls a 3G Phone on a Chip ... It will be available next year in bulk
>> >> for $23 apiece."
>> >
>> > yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.
>>
>> Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the
>> earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away.
>
>how do you know that? if apple helps broadcom meet it's engineering
>goals, it could happen in as many as 44 days. Remember the biggest
>electronics event in on the west coast "macworld" happens on Jan 15th.
>
>the iPhone is already far and away the best, highest revenue producing
>phone of all time. got back from a client yesterday that already had 2,
>but the mother said her 6 year old daughter was crying to get one of her
>own for christmas. wow...
>
>> >> That doesn't look like Apple to me.
>> >
>> > ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple.
>> >
>>
>> Cite?
>
>www.apple.com
>
>and
>
>www.fortune.com
>
>SJ, ranked the most powerful business man in the world...
>
>http://snipurl.com/1uh91
>
>facts can hurt... sorry Cozmic for being so truthful...
Just because a cell phone is the highest revenue producing phone of
all time, doesn't make it the best phone there is. Remember, when it
comes to technology-based products, there are those out there that may
sell a lot, but in the end, they got bad reviews.
Jack Johnson wrote:
> What is Apple going to do when thousands of people need their
> batteries replaced around the same time and these people start
> complaining about not being able to use their phone while they ship it
> to Apple for a battery replacement?
On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Ron <ron.cliff...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500, ned beaty <hid...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The iPhone just got even better!
>
> >http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>
> Not new iPhones. IPhones that may come out late in 2008.
>
> There is no 3G iPhone you can go buy.
You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone. Why, the hardware
and fast memory made the difference. The iphone even now on EDGE is
better than many crap Smartphones loaded with a carriers bloadtware
and crippled on a faster network. That would make many non iPhone
owners in a two year contract CRY.
> On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Ron <ron.cliff...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500, ned beaty <hid...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The iPhone just got even better!
>>
>> >http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>>
>> Not new iPhones. IPhones that may come out late in 2008.
>>
>> There is no 3G iPhone you can go buy.
>
> You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
> displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone. Why, the hardware
> and fast memory made the difference. The iphone even now on EDGE is
> better than many crap Smartphones loaded with a carriers bloadtware
> and crippled on a faster network. That would make many non iPhone
> owners in a two year contract CRY.
>
Not even close. Using an accelerator to get to a predetermined site for e
a demo is hardly impressive.
In real life, the iPhone crawsl along in direct comparision to 3g phones.
CozmicDebris wrote:
> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:60d657c2-d4cc-43d6-8633-
> 513e4928370c@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Ron <ron.cliff...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500, ned beaty <hid...@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The iPhone just got even better!
>>>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>>> Not new iPhones. IPhones that may come out late in 2008.
>>>
>>> There is no 3G iPhone you can go buy.
>> You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
>> displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone. Why, the hardware
>> and fast memory made the difference. The iphone even now on EDGE is
>> better than many crap Smartphones loaded with a carriers bloadtware
>> and crippled on a faster network. That would make many non iPhone
>> owners in a two year contract CRY.
>>
>
> Not even close. Using an accelerator to get to a predetermined site for e
> a demo is hardly impressive.
>
> In real life, the iPhone crawsl along in direct comparision to 3g phones.
Where they're really having a problem is areas of Europe that lack EDGE
(2.5G) because they're running on GPRS in those areas. These areas do
have 3G (WCDMA). These carriers thought they were being smart by jumping
straight from 2G to 3G without bothering with EDGE.
It's critical that the next generation iPhone be deployed in areas with
no EDGE networks as soon as possible, because one of the main reasons
why iPhone sales in Europe haven't met expectation is because of the
lack of 3G on the device. The other reason is the higher cost in Europe.
Sales took off in the U.S. after the price drop from $600 to $400, once
the early adopters all bought at the higher price. In Europe, consumers
took notice of how soon the price came down in the U.S. and are waiting
for a similar event.
Re: New iPhones to use 3G network 
Linear Mode
