In article <Xns9C99BC080AEC0blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
> you didn't point out anything, except for a few toy applications. I stand
> by my original claim- iPhone business productivity is much more reliant on
> the internet than a RIM phone.
i didn't point out specific applications at all, but rather large
classifications of them. now you try to move the goalposts to business
productivity or non-toy apps.
> Ness-Net wrote:
>
> > iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
> > other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>
> The real question for Apple is how many new iPhone sales could they
> generate if they offered a CDMA version through Verizon.
Except Apple has never been very interested in sales, they prefer the
quality over quantity approach.
> The iPhone has
> about a 10% market share for postpaid AT&T handsets. If Verizon was able
> to sell a similar number that would be about 9 million more iPhone
> sales, but in reality the subscribers that really wanted an iPhone
> already left Verizon, so Apple could not count on 10% market share at
> Verizon.
I think you'd be quite surprised, there are 30% or more that would leave
verizon if they can have an iphone. i get that question every day, but
the final answer is the iphone won't be on VZ until they move to LET/4G,
some 1 to 3 years away.
> Apple is very upset with AT&T right now for hurting the iPhone
> experience with its network problems. I loved the headline on one
> article about MMS finally coming to the iPhone, "AT&T to Welcome iPhone
> Users to 2003 Tomorrow." It will take a lot of money to keep exclusivity
> for AT&T.
Somewhat true, but nobody expected the iphone to take over the entire
cell market so quickly. sure i knew it would be game changing, but 30
months out, apple basically control the entire direction of the world
cell market. sweet.
One statement from Apple that there is a iPhone Nano and all the current
cell players drop by 30% or more. sweeter.
> Converting the rest of an iPhone to work with CDMA "guts" might be a
> little difficult but I suspect that relatively few people are
> sufficiently familiar with the details to offer a meaningful opinion.
Qualcomm would be happy to do all the engineering work to drop a CDMA
radio into the iPhone. It's highly likely that this has already been
done, and the engineering work is rather trivial. Many phones have CDMA
and GSM versions.
In article <apony-920D11.19251403102009@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> Somewhat true, but nobody expected the iphone to take over the entire
> cell market so quickly. sure i knew it would be game changing, but 30
> months out, apple basically control the entire direction of the world
> cell market. sweet.
what colour is the sky on your planet? does at&t have coverage there?
> One statement from Apple that there is a iPhone Nano and all the current
> cell players drop by 30% or more. sweeter.
apple has never made any statement about an iphone nano and has
strongly hinted that there isn't going to be one.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:031020092106527397%nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9C99BC080AEC0blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
> Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
>
>> you didn't point out anything, except for a few toy applications. I
>> stand by my original claim- iPhone business productivity is much more
>> reliant on the internet than a RIM phone.
>
> i didn't point out specific applications at all, but rather large
> classifications of them. now you try to move the goalposts to business
> productivity or non-toy apps.
>
> you're wrong, period.
>
I didn't move the goalpost. You simply weren't smart enough to comprehend
the words I originally wrote.
On 2009-10-03, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2009-10-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> This is what helps Verizon maintain their ratings since coverage is so
>>> much more available. Even in the fringe areas of urban settings, Verizon
>>> is superior. I was up on the southern part of Skyline Boulevard in the
>>> Santa Cruz mountains last week and I had both a Verizon phone and a
>>> phone on AT&T's network. The Verizon phone had coverage. The AT&T phone
>>> did not. The same situation occurs all over the San Francisco Bay Area.
>>
>> I agree that AT&T coverage in the mountains is inferior, but these
>> days if you want to do a fair comparison (I realize this might not
>> be the point) I think you need to have a 3G phone.
>
> I don't think that's fair at all. Even with smart phones, most people
> still would prefer a carrier that at least provides voice coverage in
> more areas.
You're confused about the technology, I think, since the above makes no
sense. 3G UMTS is a complete, separate network from 2G GSM. The 3G
network provides both voice and data service just like the 2G network;
if you are attached to the 3G network for data you are also using it for
voice.
And if the 3G service is the only thing available at 850 MHz, then if
you want to use the 850 MHz voice service you need to use a 3G phone
to make your voice calls.
>> My house is in Palo Alto, by the way, in a neighborhood where they
>> can't seem to find many places to put cell towers. My Verizon phones
>> show 1 bar inside the house but work reliably anyway; AT&T 3G now shows
>> 3 bars and works reliably, though I think that phone has bar-inflation
>> since when it shows 1 bar it barely works. The best service by far is
>> T-Mobile 2G (I don't have a 3G phone to try). I think what is "best"
>> is really specific to where you are.
>
> Shallow Alto probably has more of an aversion to ugly towers in
> neighborhoods than most cities.
I probably live in the worst bit of the city for cell phone service,
apart from the hilly sections, yet I've used the service from all 4
big carriers whie living at my house and they all worked well
enough that I didn't fire any of them for that particular reason.
On the other hand, where you live apparently only 1 carrier works,
so your city seems to be a lot worse than mine.
Oxford wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ness-Net wrote:
>>
>>> iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
>>> other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>> The real question for Apple is how many new iPhone sales could they
>> generate if they offered a CDMA version through Verizon.
>
> Except Apple has never been very interested in sales
Oxford wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ness-Net wrote:
>>
>>> iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
>>> other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>> The real question for Apple is how many new iPhone sales could they
>> generate if they offered a CDMA version through Verizon.
>
> Except Apple has never been very interested in sales, they prefer the
> quality over quantity approach.
>
Right, selling them in aisle 39 of walmart sure is classy and right up
to apples high standards.
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:16:26 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnhcg1bq.9b.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>You're confused about the technology, I think, since the above makes no
>sense. 3G UMTS is a complete, separate network from 2G GSM.
3G UMTS is actually integrated with 2G GSM.
The only thing that's separate is the radio.
>And if the 3G service is the only thing available at 850 MHz, then if
>you want to use the 850 MHz voice service you need to use a 3G phone
>to make your voice calls.
Unlikely in the foreseeable future.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:30:30 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac7fa6a$0$1640$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Converting the rest of an iPhone to work with CDMA "guts" might be a
>> little difficult but I suspect that relatively few people are
>> sufficiently familiar with the details to offer a meaningful opinion.
>
>Qualcomm would be happy to do all the engineering work to drop a CDMA
>radio into the iPhone.
Sure, for a price.
>It's highly likely that this has already been
>done,
Your speculation.
>and the engineering work is rather trivial.
Not true.
>Many phones have CDMA
>and GSM versions.
True, but meaningless. If it were "rather trivial", then there would be
many more such phones.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:25:14 -0600, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in
<apony-920D11.19251403102009@news.qwest.net>:
>Except Apple has never been very interested in sales, ...
What the heck are you smoking?!
>... nobody expected the iphone to take over the entire
>cell market so quickly. sure i knew it would be game changing, but 30
>months out, apple basically control the entire direction of the world
>cell market. sweet.
Total nonsense.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-D92746.17481802102009@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Apple has shown no such interest. CDMA2000 is dying.
>
> That's because the Navas SuperGSM will take over!
I was wondering when that would pop up.
John has been full of crap before
Seems like things haven't changed...
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:8g8cc5hi6pg6gfsrfo3fnbrnhgte2rvt9m@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:41:14 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4ac610bb$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Ness-Net wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
>>> other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>>
>>This is one of many studies. The CFI study is one of many.
>>
>>CNET article on the CFI study
>>"http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10365952-266.html"
>>
>>What is hurting AT&T more than that is the massive surveys done by
>>Consumer Reports, J.D. Power, and other organizations which consistently
>>show AT&T to have poorer coverage than Verizon. These are surveys with
>>very large sample sizes and extremely small margins of error.
>
> Simply not true, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
> Your anti-AT&T agenda is very tiresome.
> Move on and get a life.
>
It simply IS true - your head in the sand doesn't change anything.
Deny all you want - the facts remain the same.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:3c3fc5t1tkc6j5186tevfqarnoqtq2bc4j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:31:49 -0500, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
> wrote in <vbkec5tc60l393lcm3f5hgd4g9s5lhc49b@4ax.com>:
>
>>and T-Mobile and Sprint are saddled with 1900 Mhz, guaranteeing Dead
>>spots, and lack of indoor coverage; and failing hardware from
>>overheating; braodcasting at the higher frequency.
>
> Total nonsense.
Not "total nonsense" - just some of it. But typical Navas....
1900MHz - mostly correct - Higher freq = shorter wavelength = different propagation than 800MHz
John, you've been schooled in the RF propagation physics before - and just can't seem to 'get it'
Or won't admit it because it doesn't fit your agenda - whatever that is
1900MHZ just doesn't work the same as 800MHZ out there in the real world. It is a undisputable fact.
Ness-Net wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-D92746.17481802102009@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Apple has shown no such interest. CDMA2000 is dying.
>>
>> That's because the Navas SuperGSM will take over!
>
> I was wondering when that would pop up.
> John has been full of crap before
> Seems like things haven't changed...
As well as being wrong. CDMA2000 continues to add new subscribers as a
greater percentage rate than GSM as new CDMA networks are deployed
across the globe. Many corporations in the U.S. will not even allow the
use of GSM because of security concerns.
> It simply IS true - your head in the sand doesn't change anything.
> Deny all you want - the facts remain the same.
> And we can 'cite' too...
LOL, who should everyone believe, organizations full of statisticians
and researchers, whose survival depends on the accuracy and validity of
their research and surveys, or someone who has been a shill for
AT&T/Cingular for as long as anyone can remember?
Oh but wait, he pointed it out _repeatedly_! That changes everything!
On 2009-10-04, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:16:26 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
><dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
><slrnhcg1bq.9b.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>
>>You're confused about the technology, I think, since the above makes no
>>sense. 3G UMTS is a complete, separate network from 2G GSM.
>
> 3G UMTS is actually integrated with 2G GSM.
> The only thing that's separate is the radio.
Well, the codecs are different (UMTS is variable rate), the
authentication is different (that's why you need a USIM), and
there are many 3G carriers with no 2G network just like there
are 2G carriers with no 3G network. If you happen to have both
networks they might share some stuff.
>>And if the 3G service is the only thing available at 850 MHz, then if
>>you want to use the 850 MHz voice service you need to use a 3G phone
>>to make your voice calls.
>
> Unlikely in the foreseeable future.
"AT&T’s decision to co-opt the higher-frequency band for 3G services
will means that 2G services will now rely on the more finicky and
shorter-range 1900Mhz band. In fact, you may have already started
noticing a drop in 2G performance in your area. Still, the push to
migrate 3G services to the 850Mhz band highlights AT&T’s ongoing effort
to improve their 3G network."
This rather sucks for those users interested only in voice coverage,
though I suppose the non-3G users are becoming the stepchildren of AT&T,
and AT&T doesn't care much about retaining relatively low ARPU customers
that care mainly about voice coverage.
Verizon doesn't have a lot of areas where they have spectrum and both
800 and 1900, so they are less likely to be sacrificing 2G for 3G. Of
course if you have T-Mobile or Sprint you're blessed with poorer
coverage for both 2G and 3G, though with Sprint you can roam onto
Verizon's 800 MHz network.
>> Sure, for a price.
>
> Where's that SuperGSM you told us was coming, eh?
It's coming soon!
BTW, the "price" Qualcomm would charge would be $0. Navas has no
knowledge of how the world works when it comes to semiconductor
companies and licensees trying to win high volume customers. Either
there is no charge at all for doing the design for the customer, or
there is some NRE that is credited to the customer when they place
volume orders.
For cell phones, what typically happens is the vendor of the major
components for each sub-system submits their section of design to the
phone manufacturer or the contract manufacturer (who often is doing the
whole design) and all the sub-sections are merged together.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:051020090003472638%nospam@nospam.invalid...
: In article <4ac94739$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
: <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
:
: > BTW, the "price" Qualcomm would charge would be $0.
:
: you are delusional if you think they'd do it for free.
Qualcomm 'gives' a license to the carriers and changes the handset
manufactures out the a** If memory serves that was $10 / unit for the
original CDMA cell phones
On 2009-10-04, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
>> http://www.intomobile.com/2009/02/24...k-going-850mhz
>
> Thanks for that link.
>
> "AT&T’s decision to co-opt the higher-frequency band for 3G services
> will means that 2G services will now rely on the more finicky and
> shorter-range 1900Mhz band. In fact, you may have already started
> noticing a drop in 2G performance in your area. Still, the push to
> migrate 3G services to the 850Mhz band highlights AT&T’s ongoing effort
> to improve their 3G network."
>
> This rather sucks for those users interested only in voice coverage,
No, it actually improves voice coverage a bit since 3G WCDMA voice
reaches further from the tower than 2G GSM. WCDMA matches CDMA, more
or less.
> though I suppose the non-3G users are becoming the stepchildren of AT&T,
> and AT&T doesn't care much about retaining relatively low ARPU customers
> that care mainly about voice coverage.
70% (I'm not sure why it isn't 100%) of the handsets AT&T currently
offers, including 5 of the 8 they're now giving away free for the price
of a contract, are 3G handsets. Even the lowest ARPU customer can have
one, even if voice is all they care about.
> Verizon doesn't have a lot of areas where they have spectrum and both
> 800 and 1900, so they are less likely to be sacrificing 2G for 3G. Of
Look at the license maps. In many of the areas where Verizon has
800 MHz spectrum they also have 1900 MHz spectrum; if they didn't
they wouldn't be running afoul of the no-more-than-90-MHz-in-a-market
FCC rule since the 700 MHz auction. California is a notable exception
where they don't have anything but the 25 MHz at 800 MHz, which is
probably why their service where I live shows so many signs of
overload.
And you are really, really confused about exactly what generation
network Verizon runs. For CDMA the 2G network was CDMAOne (i.e.
IS-95), the 3G network is CDMA2000. See, e.g.
Verizon no longer has a CDMAOne network anywhere; their entire network
is CDMA2000. Verizon only has a 3G network, they have no 2G at all.
That fact hasn't changed their voice coverage at all since their
3G network supports both voice and data, just like AT&T's 3G.
If you want to see AT&T's best voice coverage going forward, however,
you'll need a 3G phone. Even a dumbphone will do. That's all I said
about the topic 3 posts ago.
> No, it actually improves voice coverage a bit since 3G WCDMA voice
> reaches further from the tower than 2G GSM. WCDMA matches CDMA, more
> or less.
Yes, this is true if everyone gets a W-CDMA handset. I think it's fair
to say that at this time most AT&T users are still using GSM handsets
that can't take advantage of 850 MHz W-CDMA.
If AT&T can convert its entire network to W-CDMA while keeping GSM
active for the few remaining GSM users (especially roamers from abroad)
and get rid of all of their own GSM-only handsets then it'd be great,
other than for those visitors to the U.S. with handsets that have only
2100 MHz for W-CDMA. How many handsets have both W-CDMA 850 and W-CDMA
2100? How about W-CDMA 1900 as well, until the transition is complete?
Maybe add W-CDMA 1700 as well so it's usable on T-Mobile's 3G network.
So all that's needed is a handset that supports GSM 800, GSM 900, GSM
1800, GSM 1900, W-CDMA 800, W-CDMA 1700, W-CDMA 1900, and W-CDMA 2100.
It's rather amusing to look at the turn of events here. The old AT&T
Wireless was all set to move from TDMA to CDMA until NTT Docomo made
their $9.8 billion investment contingent on AT&T moving to GSM and
W-CDMA. Perhaps AT&T Wireless would have screwed up the transition to
CDMA as badly as they screwed up their GSM transition, but it's
unlikely. It's not unfair to say that the botched TDMA to GSM
transition, with the resulting mass defections from AT&T Wireless (which
was the largest carrier), led to its demise and its acquisition by Cingular.
>"AT&T’s decision to co-opt the higher-frequency band for 3G services
>will means that 2G services will now rely on the more finicky and
>shorter-range 1900Mhz band. In fact, you may have already started
>noticing a drop in 2G performance in your area. Still, the push to
>migrate 3G services to the 850Mhz band highlights AT&T’s ongoing effort
>to improve their 3G network."
That's posted by someone as clueless as you about frequencies.
>This rather sucks for those users interested only in voice coverage,
>though I suppose the non-3G users are becoming the stepchildren of AT&T,
>and AT&T doesn't care much about retaining relatively low ARPU customers
>that care mainly about voice coverage.
Not true either.
>Verizon doesn't have a lot of areas where they have spectrum and both
>800 and 1900, so they are less likely to be sacrificing 2G for 3G. Of
>course if you have T-Mobile or Sprint you're blessed with poorer
>coverage for both 2G and 3G, though with Sprint you can roam onto
>Verizon's 800 MHz network.
Your usual misinformation.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:18:38 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac98f73$0$1673$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>It's rather amusing to look at the turn of events here. The old AT&T
>Wireless was all set to move from TDMA to CDMA until NTT Docomo made
>their $9.8 billion investment contingent on AT&T moving to GSM and
>W-CDMA.
Nothing of the sort, as I've shown previously.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:10:32 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac94739$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>>> Sure, for a price.
>>
>> Where's that SuperGSM you told us was coming, eh?
>
>It's coming soon!
>
>BTW, the "price" Qualcomm would charge would be $0. ...
Simply not true.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:31:45 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac8e9c2$0$1659$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Ness-Net wrote:
>>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>> news:elmop-D92746.17481802102009@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Apple has shown no such interest. CDMA2000 is dying.
>>>
>>> That's because the Navas SuperGSM will take over!
>>
>> I was wondering when that would pop up.
>> John has been full of crap before
>> Seems like things haven't changed...
>
>As well as being wrong. CDMA2000 continues to add new subscribers as a
>greater percentage rate than GSM as new CDMA networks are deployed
>across the globe. Many corporations in the U.S. will not even allow the
>use of GSM because of security concerns.
Wrong on both counts.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Re: Sorry Navas.... 
Linear Mode
