This post is more of a mile marker as Apple continues to take over the
Cell Industry, so enjoy...
Apple¹s App Store Downloads Top Two Billion
More Than 85,000 Apps Now Available for iPhone & iPod touch
CUPERTINO, California September 28, 2009
Apple today announced that more than two billion apps have been
downloaded from its revolutionary App Store, the largest applications
store in the world. There are now more than 85,000 apps available to the
more than 50 million iPhone and iPod touch® customers worldwide and
over 125,000 developers in Apple¹s iPhone Developer Program.
³The rate of App Store downloads continues to accelerate with users
downloading a staggering two billion apps in just over a year, including
more than half a billion apps this quarter alone,² said Steve Jobs,
Apple¹s CEO. ³The App Store has reinvented what you can do with a mobile
handheld device, and our users are clearly loving it.²
Today, iPhone and iPod touch customers in 77 countries worldwide can
choose from an incredible range of apps in 20 categories, including
games, business, news, sports, health, reference and travel. With the
recently introduced iTunes® 9, it¹s now easier than ever to organize and
sync your apps right in iTunes and they will automatically appear on
your iPhone or iPod touch with the same layout.
Yawn......
Oxy, I thought you finally went away...
Who gives a crap if you are forced to be on an inferior network.
I always thought it was very stupid to pick a device - and not consider the network it's on.
Fairly nice device - (other than the flaws like the battery, etc)
Many fanbois prove time and time this sheer stupidity.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-25D4E1.16335328092009@n003-000-000-000.static.ge.com...
> This post is more of a mile marker as Apple continues to take over the
> Cell Industry, so enjoy...
>
>
> Apple¹s App Store Downloads Top Two Billion
> More Than 85,000 Apps Now Available for iPhone & iPod touch
>
> CUPERTINO, California September 28, 2009
>
> Apple today announced that more than two billion apps have been
> downloaded from its revolutionary App Store, the largest applications
> store in the world. There are now more than 85,000 apps available to the
> more than 50 million iPhone and iPod touch® customers worldwide and
> over 125,000 developers in Apple¹s iPhone Developer Program.
>
> ³The rate of App Store downloads continues to accelerate with users
> downloading a staggering two billion apps in just over a year, including
> more than half a billion apps this quarter alone,² said Steve Jobs,
> Apple¹s CEO. ³The App Store has reinvented what you can do with a mobile
> handheld device, and our users are clearly loving it.²
>
> Today, iPhone and iPod touch customers in 77 countries worldwide can
> choose from an incredible range of apps in 20 categories, including
> games, business, news, sports, health, reference and travel. With the
> recently introduced iTunes® 9, it¹s now easier than ever to organize and
> sync your apps right in iTunes and they will automatically appear on
> your iPhone or iPod touch with the same layout.
>
> ---
>
> http://www.apple.com/
"Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote in
news:0LCdndZ2sanOw1zXnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com :
> Yawn......
> Oxy, I thought you finally went away...
>
> Who gives a crap if you are forced to be on an inferior network.
> I always thought it was very stupid to pick a device - and not
> consider the network it's on.
>
> Fairly nice device - (other than the flaws like the battery, etc)
>
> Many fanbois prove time and time this sheer stupidity.
>
>
>
Apple's App Store Downloads Top Two Billion
More Than 85,000 Apps Now Available for iPhone & iPod touch
CUPERTINO, California -- September 28, 2009
Apple today announced that more than two billion apps have been
downloaded from its revolutionary App Store, the largest applications
store in the world. There are now more than 85,000 apps available to the
more than 50 million iPhone(TM) and iPod touch(R) customers worldwide and
over 125,000 developers in Apple's iPhone Developer Program.
"The rate of App Store downloads continues to accelerate with users
downloading a staggering two billion apps in just over a year, including
more than half a billion apps this quarter alone," said Steve Jobs,
Apple's CEO. "The App Store has reinvented what you can do with a mobile
handheld device, and our users are clearly loving it."
Today, iPhone and iPod touch customers in 77 countries worldwide can
choose from an incredible range of apps in 20 categories, including
games, business, news, sports, health, reference and travel. With the
recently introduced iTunes(R) 9, it's now easier than ever to organize and
sync your apps right in iTunes and they will automatically appear on
your iPhone or iPod touch with the same layout.
Ness-Net wrote:
> Yawn......
> Oxy, I thought you finally went away...
>
> Who gives a crap if you are forced to be on an inferior network.
> I always thought it was very stupid to pick a device - and not consider
> the network it's on.
>
> Fairly nice device - (other than the flaws like the battery, etc)
>
> Many fanbois prove time and time this sheer stupidity.
The New York Times said that at least 75% of the applications on the
apps store are free apps. Does anyone know how many apps the store has
actually sold? Even 100 million revenue producing apps would be pretty
impressive compared to what's been sold for other phones and PDAs.
I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
iPhone is because of AT&T.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
In general, AT&T coverage is actually comparable to Verizon coverage.
Both carriers have holes and gaps. One is not significantly better than
the other overall. What matters is coverage in your particular areas.
To those of us without your anti-AT&T agenda that is.
>Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>iPhone is because of AT&T.
Yet another made up fantasy, without support of any kind, as usual.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The New York Times said that at least 75% of the applications on the
> apps store are free apps.
link?
based on analytics, it's actually the opposite (i can't find the graph
from pinchmedia but it's similar):
<http://www.mobclix.com/appstore/1>
> Does anyone know how many apps the store has
> actually sold?
yes, someone does.
> Even 100 million revenue producing apps would be pretty
> impressive compared to what's been sold for other phones and PDAs.
> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
that is highly unlikely to happen until lte is deployed, and apple is
selling all they can make anyway.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:23:34 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <290920090923349741%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The New York Times said that at least 75% of the applications on the
>> apps store are free apps.
>
>link?
>
>based on analytics, it's actually the opposite (i can't find the graph
>from pinchmedia but it's similar):
>
><http://www.mobclix.com/appstore/1>
Surely you know by now that Steven usually just makes things up to suit
his own (distorted) world view, which is why there are no citations.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:53:38 -0700, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <290920090953388020%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <nvd4c5h06qk15b6151jl9h2fc5fa84pr15@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Surely you know by now that Steven usually just makes things up to suit
>> his own (distorted) world view, which is why there are no citations.
>
>yes i do, and why i cite links where applicable.
Oh really?
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
> Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
> iPhone is because of AT&T.
There's some suspicion that Verizon may have demanded control and/or a
cut of App. Store sales or things like VCast being put on the phone.
poldy wrote:
> In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>> Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>> iPhone is because of AT&T.
>
> There's some suspicion that Verizon may have demanded control and/or a
> cut of App. Store sales or things like VCast being put on the phone.
That's just what Verizon does! Apple may have met their match in a
company that believes that the optimal user experience and maximization
of revenue comes from maintaining control over their products even once
the product is sold. There is something to this, considering the
relative lack of malware on the Apple platform, and the stability of the
iPhone compared to some of the open smart phone platforms.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:58:31 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac37fd7$0$1610$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>poldy wrote:
>> In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>>> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>>> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>>> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>>> Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>>> iPhone is because of AT&T.
>>
>> There's some suspicion that Verizon may have demanded control and/or a
>> cut of App. Store sales or things like VCast being put on the phone.
>
>That's just what Verizon does! Apple may have met their match in a
>company that believes that the optimal user experience and maximization
>of revenue comes from maintaining control over their products even once
>the product is sold. There is something to this, considering the
>relative lack of malware on the Apple platform, and the stability of the
>iPhone compared to some of the open smart phone platforms.
Not really. What's different is the user experience.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:42:14 -0600, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in
<apony-3F37ED.00421130092009@news.qwest.net>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> It's just a phone.
>
>that's just one app, but there are 85,000 others...
>
>http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/
[yawn]
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On 2009-09-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>
> that is highly unlikely to happen until lte is deployed, and apple is
> selling all they can make anyway.
And I suspect Apple would be unwilling to do an LTE+CDMA phone, so
this is unlikely to help with coverage issues in any case.
A lot of CDMA operators seem to have seen the writing on the wall
that LTE+CDMA phones are likely to be almost as rare as GSM+CDMA
phones. The LTE strategy of Bell Mobility and Telus in Canada starts
with deploying 3G UMTS/HSPA network-wide, along side of CDMA, so that
users with the LTE phones which are likely to exist will have a service
those phones can fall back to when LTE coverage runs out. I doubt
that they'd bother if they thought there would be a lot of attractive
LTE+CDMA phones available.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:27:11 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnhc71mv.4f.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2009-09-29, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>><scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>>> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>>> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>>> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>>
>> that is highly unlikely to happen until lte is deployed, and apple is
>> selling all they can make anyway.
>
>And I suspect Apple would be unwilling to do an LTE+CDMA phone, so
>this is unlikely to help with coverage issues in any case.
>
>A lot of CDMA operators seem to have seen the writing on the wall
>that LTE+CDMA phones are likely to be almost as rare as GSM+CDMA
>phones. The LTE strategy of Bell Mobility and Telus in Canada starts
>with deploying 3G UMTS/HSPA network-wide, along side of CDMA, so that
>users with the LTE phones which are likely to exist will have a service
>those phones can fall back to when LTE coverage runs out. I doubt
>that they'd bother if they thought there would be a lot of attractive
>LTE+CDMA phones available.
The long slide of CDMA2000 into oblivion continues.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:df84c5dvl1lgosvoqfnhsq52p4rulttc0m@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>>a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>>to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>>second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>
> In general, AT&T coverage is actually comparable to Verizon coverage.
> Both carriers have holes and gaps. One is not significantly better than
> the other overall. What matters is coverage in your particular areas.
> To those of us without your anti-AT&T agenda that is.
>
>>Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>>iPhone is because of AT&T.
>
> Yet another made up fantasy, without support of any kind, as usual.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>
> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
We knew already of the widespread dissatisfaction with AT&T among iPhone owners, of course, but there's something to be
said for attaching reliable numbers to conventional wisdom.
According to a CFI Group Smartphone Satisfaction Study released this morning:
50 percent of iPhone customers would like to switch providers;
40 percent of iPhone users switched providers just to get the iPhone in the first place;
Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch than it is among those who did not have to switch
(64 vs. 72 on the CFI scale).
iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
Ness-Net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:df84c5dvl1lgosvoqfnhsq52p4rulttc0m@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>>> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>>> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>>> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>>
>> In general, AT&T coverage is actually comparable to Verizon coverage.
>> Both carriers have holes and gaps. One is not significantly better than
>> the other overall. What matters is coverage in your particular areas.
>> To those of us without your anti-AT&T agenda that is.
>>
>>> Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>>> iPhone is because of AT&T.
>>
>> Yet another made up fantasy, without support of any kind, as usual.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>>
>> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
>> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
>
> Half of iPhone owners would drop AT&T like a bad habit
> New survey results show predictable love for iPhone and loathing of AT&T
> http://www.networkworld.com/communit..._am_2009-10-01
>
>
>
> We knew already of the widespread dissatisfaction with AT&T among iPhone
> owners, of course, but there's something to be said for attaching
> reliable numbers to conventional wisdom.
>
> According to a CFI Group Smartphone Satisfaction Study released this
> morning:
>
> 50 percent of iPhone customers would like to switch providers;
>
> 40 percent of iPhone users switched providers just to get the iPhone in
> the first place;
>
> Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch
> than it is among those who did not have to switch (64 vs. 72 on the CFI
> scale).
>
> iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
> other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>
Even as iPhoneys pooch the mobile experience for others.
Ness-Net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:df84c5dvl1lgosvoqfnhsq52p4rulttc0m@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>> I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>>> a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>>> to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>>> second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>>
>> In general, AT&T coverage is actually comparable to Verizon coverage.
>> Both carriers have holes and gaps. One is not significantly better than
>> the other overall. What matters is coverage in your particular areas.
>> To those of us without your anti-AT&T agenda that is.
>>
>>> Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>>> iPhone is because of AT&T.
>>
>> Yet another made up fantasy, without support of any kind, as usual.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>>
>> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
>> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
>
> Half of iPhone owners would drop AT&T like a bad habit
> New survey results show predictable love for iPhone and loathing of AT&T
> http://www.networkworld.com/communit..._am_2009-10-01
>
>
>
> We knew already of the widespread dissatisfaction with AT&T among iPhone
> owners, of course, but there's something to be said for attaching
> reliable numbers to conventional wisdom.
>
> According to a CFI Group Smartphone Satisfaction Study released this
> morning:
>
> 50 percent of iPhone customers would like to switch providers;
>
> 40 percent of iPhone users switched providers just to get the iPhone in
> the first place;
>
> Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch
> than it is among those who did not have to switch (64 vs. 72 on the CFI
> scale).
>
> iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
> other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>
>
>
>
>
Nah, all of the iphone fanboys love at&t:
> 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.
Perhaps if Verizon had the kind of 3G traffic that the iPhone is
generating then their data network would be as bogged down as AT&T's,
but for voice coverage, Verizon and CDMA are still king in the U.S..
Clearly consumers feel that coverage trumps handset selection since
Verizon is the largest carrier in the U.S., and there are more U.S. CDMA
users than GSM users.
Personally, what I like the most is having coverage not only in Verizon
areas, but in many rural and remote areas where the smaller carriers
have moved to CDMA (and in some cases kept their AMPS networks running).
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.
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.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
> We knew already of the widespread dissatisfaction with AT&T among iPhone
> owners, of course, but there's something to be said for attaching
> reliable numbers to conventional wisdom.
>
> According to a CFI Group Smartphone Satisfaction Study released this
> morning:
>
> 50 percent of iPhone customers would like to switch providers;
>
> 40 percent of iPhone users switched providers just to get the iPhone in
> the first place;
>
> Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch
> than it is among those who did not have to switch (64 vs. 72 on the CFI
> scale).
What it all boils down to is how much money AT&T will pay Apple for
Apple not to bring the CDMA iPhone to market.
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. While the phones
I have don't have the right knobs to prove it, I've seen some
evidence that AT&T has been moving their 3G service down to 850 MHz,
leaving 2G at 1900 MHz, in some locations. At my house 3G coverage
used to be pathetic while 2G was okay; now 3G is okay while 2G barely
exists indoors (the latter being how it used to be with GSM phones
which lacked 850 MHz).
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.
> > Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch
> > than it is among those who did not have to switch (64 vs. 72 on the CFI
> > scale).
>
> What it all boils down to is how much money AT&T will pay Apple for
> Apple not to bring the CDMA iPhone to market.
a CDMA iPhone will never happen, Apple wouldn't be interested in
maintaining a phone that would be obsolete in 24-36 months. apple is
very conservative when making decisions. they will wait for VZ to catch
up to the rest of the world with LTE/G4.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4ac610bb$0$1629
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> Perhaps if Verizon had the kind of 3G traffic that the iPhone is
> generating then their data network would be as bogged down as AT&T's,
>
Why does Iphone generate so much traffic? It has no removable storage, a
marginal web browser that doesn't support Flash and most streaming
protocols, there's no heavy downloading like usenet binaries or P2P as
there's limited space to put it on that can't be swapped.
What does it do that generates so much traffic? Anyone on any service with
an aircard plugged into a real computer is going to be the data hog....like
me on Cricket watching Livestation TV at 600Kbps or video.google.com hour
long video clips. Per cell tower there aren't that many iPhones in range,
except in the huge cities, I suppose.
> Why does Iphone generate so much traffic? It has no removable storage, a
> marginal web browser that doesn't support Flash and most streaming
> protocols, there's no heavy downloading like usenet binaries or P2P as
> there's limited space to put it on that can't be swapped.
it's mainly because it has so much functionality. it doesn't need
removable store since it auto syncs with iTunes, so it's basically
unlimited storage. actually, it has the best browser by far on any
phone, and flash isn't ready yet for phones, it kills the battery. with
88,000 data hungry apps, it eats the old cell networks alive.
> What does it do that generates so much traffic? Anyone on any service with
> an aircard plugged into a real computer is going to be the data hog....like
> me on Cricket watching Livestation TV at 600Kbps or video.google.com hour
> long video clips. Per cell tower there aren't that many iPhones in range,
> except in the huge cities, I suppose.
you have streaming radio, video, tv, photos, you have tons of web
traffic, lots of emails, tons of maps, on and on.
85,000 iPhone Apps, 2 Billion Apps Downloaded 
Linear Mode
