Cingular cell phone service - Jobs SLAMS 3G

Author

Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

Oxford

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

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
Apple is delivering today. Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe did.

The iPhone gets around 6 hours of talk time, 10-40 hours of normal use.
200 hours of standby. 3G would cut that in half. No thanks!

----

Apple chief executive Steve Jobs slammed 3G phones for having limited
battery life as he launched the iPhone in the UK through an exclusive
deal with network operator O2.

O2 is thought to have signed an unprecedented agreement passing around
10pc of all revenues from the iPhone to Apple, whose tough commercial
terms some other mobile networks baulked at.

One of those was Vodafone, whose chief executive Arun Sarin has pointed
out that the first version of the iPhone will not run on 3G mobile
networks, thus offering only the slower web browsing speeds of 2.5G
unless customers are in a wi-fi hotspot.

Mr Jobs, however, said Apple had decided against incorporating 3G for
now because it drained battery life. "The 3G chipsets work well apart
from power. They're real power hogs. Most phones now have battery lives
of two to three hours," he added.

"Our phone has eight hours of talktime life. That's really important
when you start to use the internet and want to use the phone to listen
to music. We've got to see the battery lives for 3G get back up into the
five-plus hour range. Hopefully we'll see that late next year."

Ben Wood, director of research at CCS Insight said: ''Jobs knows people
are going to buy iPhone whether it's got 3G or not, it's a lifestyle
device and a fashion item.

"If you put 3G into it, it could cost $20 to $40 extra for Apple to make
each one just to placate network operators who have invested billions in
networks. Doing it this way also allows Jobs to stand up in a year's
time and say 'now the time is right for the 3G iPhone'."

Apple is expected to award a German iPhone distribution deal to Deutsche
Telekom's T-Mobile and a French deal to France Telecom's Orange later
this week.

Asked to respond to talk that he had angered European mobile networks by
playing them off against each other before picking partners Mr Jobs
said: "It's kind of like getting married. We dated a few people but
didn't get married to them. I guess there are a few upset girlfriends
out there."

http://snipurl.com/1qvfh

Frankster

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

> 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
> Apple is delivering today. Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
> good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe did.

EVDO *is* a 3G standard, you nitwit! And Jobs doesn't control the
cell-phone market (big surprise for you I'm sure!).

-Frank

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

On Sep 18, 2:47 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Cellphone companies are going to have to scramble to catch up with what
> Apple is delivering today. Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
> good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe

so... 3g sucks, and evdo is good, eh oxford? hahahahaaaaaa!

<snip>

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:47:52 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@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.
>
>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!
>

Likely very true. WiFi availability is rapidly expanding, and WiMax
will soon be upon us, meanwhile in Houston, TX ATT 3G is like Swiss
Cheese, hardly better than WiFi, despite maps showing otherwise.

John C. Randolph

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

On 2007-09-18 14:47:52 -0700, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> said:

> 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.

-jcr

George Kerby

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

On 9/18/07 6:20 PM, in article 88n0f3h3nillt1iqe4df
e0d6fqrakcbvbb@4ax.com,
" karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net" < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:47:52 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Likely very true. WiFi availability is rapidly expanding, and WiMax
> will soon be upon us, meanwhile in Houston, TX ATT 3G is like Swiss
> Cheese, hardly better than WiFi, despite maps showing otherwise.
My EDGE+ (2.5G) here in H-Town pretty much gives me an average of 225 kbps.

Www.iphonenetworktest.com

John

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

Oxford 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.
>
> 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
> Apple is delivering today. Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
> good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe did.
>
> The iPhone gets around 6 hours of talk time, 10-40 hours of normal use.
> 200 hours of standby. 3G would cut that in half. No thanks!
>
> ----
>
> Apple chief executive Steve Jobs slammed 3G phones for having limited
> battery life as he launched the iPhone in the UK through an exclusive
> deal with network operator O2.
>
> O2 is thought to have signed an unprecedented agreement passing around
> 10pc of all revenues from the iPhone to Apple, whose tough commercial
> terms some other mobile networks baulked at.
>
> One of those was Vodafone, whose chief executive Arun Sarin has pointed
> out that the first version of the iPhone will not run on 3G mobile
> networks, thus offering only the slower web browsing speeds of 2.5G
> unless customers are in a wi-fi hotspot.
>
> Mr Jobs, however, said Apple had decided against incorporating 3G for
> now because it drained battery life. "The 3G chipsets work well apart
> from power. They're real power hogs. Most phones now have battery lives
> of two to three hours," he added.
>
> "Our phone has eight hours of talktime life. That's really important
> when you start to use the internet and want to use the phone to listen
> to music. We've got to see the battery lives for 3G get back up into the
> five-plus hour range. Hopefully we'll see that late next year."
>
> Ben Wood, director of research at CCS Insight said: ''Jobs knows people
> are going to buy iPhone whether it's got 3G or not, it's a lifestyle
> device and a fashion item.
>
> "If you put 3G into it, it could cost $20 to $40 extra for Apple to make
> each one just to placate network operators who have invested billions in
> networks. Doing it this way also allows Jobs to stand up in a year's
> time and say 'now the time is right for the 3G iPhone'."
>
> Apple is expected to award a German iPhone distribution deal to Deutsche
> Telekom's T-Mobile and a French deal to France Telecom's Orange later
> this week.
>
> Asked to respond to talk that he had angered European mobile networks by
> playing them off against each other before picking partners Mr Jobs
> said: "It's kind of like getting married. We dated a few people but
> didn't get married to them. I guess there are a few upset girlfriends
> out there."
>
> http://snipurl.com/1qvfh

Actually Jobs said today that it "will be about another year" before 3G
chips will have low power consumption.

Oxford

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

"Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:

>
> EVDO *is* a 3G standard, you nitwit! And Jobs doesn't control the
> cell-phone market (big surprise for you I'm sure!).

But it is part of CDMA2000, which doesn't suck power as badly as 3G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000

Ah, guess you didn't get the memo, Job now controls the upper portion of
the Cellphone Industry. He'll work his way down over the coming years to
control most of the industry, so everyone better shape up or ship out.

There really isn't any other choice for cell companies at this point.

It sounds like Frankster doesn't know how all this works...

Oxford

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:

>
> 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.

Oxford

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:

>
> Likely very true. WiFi availability is rapidly expanding, and WiMax
> will soon be upon us, meanwhile in Houston, TX ATT 3G is like Swiss
> Cheese, hardly better than WiFi, despite maps showing otherwise.

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. "the internet"
is the network, not some proprietary format that is decades old.

cell networks = punch cards

-

Oxford

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Actually Jobs said today that it "will be about another year" before 3G
> chips will have low power consumption.

it won't happen. 3G is dead at this point in the game.

Scott

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-4EE5B2.18372318092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>
> But it is part of CDMA2000, which doesn't suck power as badly as 3G.
>

Oh, my stupid little troll. You need to learn more before posting in the
big peoples' groups. 3G is a generic term for technology, not a platform
like CDMA2000. EVDO is most certainly 3G technology by every definition
known to man.

And keep spouting about wi-fi. Chicago and San Francisco say hello- they
will bne joined by more major motropolitan areas by the end of the year.

Scott

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-F0170A.18403818092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

And what about 4G, fanboi?

Scott

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
66FF04.18445718092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> it won't happen. 3G is dead at this point in the game.
>

And you declare this without even knowing what it is.

SMS

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

John C. Randolph wrote:
> On 2007-09-18 14:47:52 -0700, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> said:
>
>
> 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.

This was really just a rationalization in an attempt to cast the iPhone
competition in a bad light, until Apple can catch up and offer 3G.

Yes 3G uses a lot of power, so does WiFi. A lot of users of 3G are
tethering, and the large laptop battery is powering the phone via USB.

It's two different markets. Most iPhone users are content with Edge to
use when on the road, and at work and home they have WiFi. The HSDPA and
EVDO users are willing to pay for high-speed ubiquitous access. For now,
WiFi access is very hit or miss, and of course there is no handoff.
WiMax will change all this if it ever gets deployed sufficiently, but
we're a long way from that.

zara

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

What are you doing here , Dickhead? Go back with the other Hardons in your
own group.

IMHO IIRC

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

In news:colalovesmacs-4EE5B2.18372318092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
>
>
> But it is part of CDMA2000, which doesn't suck power as badly as 3G.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000

This is applicable to Verizon & Sprint - NOT ATT - ATT uses GSM :D

>
> Ah, guess you didn't get the memo, Job now controls the upper portion of
> the Cellphone Industry. He'll work his way down over the coming years to
> control most of the industry, so everyone better shape up or ship out.
>
> There really isn't any other choice for cell companies at this point.
>
> It sounds like Frankster doesn't know how all this works...

Verizon & Sprint use CDMA/1xRTT/EVDO and are implementing CDMA2000
All of the current phones will contimue to be compatable as CDMA2000 is
implemented.

ATT & T-Mobile use GSM/GPRS/EDGE and will eventually convert to
UMTS/HSDPA also kmown as WCDMA.
When ATT converts to WCDMA the current GSM phones will no longer work.
Like GSM phones & TDMA phones are not compatable.
And since the iPhone is GSM it will be like having a TDMA phone on a GSM
network.

Jim Lee Jr.

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

In article <nZ_Hi.47756$wN3.27516@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
"zara" <albert@heddonlures.com> wrote:

> What are you doing here, dickhead? Go back with the other hardons in your
> own group.

Why are you talking to yourself?

--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8

Kevin Weaver

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

So by all this, the people that were waiting for the next model that was
rumored to have 3G is out of the question ?

Look for another price cut in the not to near future. :)
When they get down to 200-250 I'll go check them out again.
Doing the web at 100K Is not fun.

"zara" <albert@heddonlures.com> wrote in message
news:nZ_Hi.47756$wN3.27516@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> What are you doing here , Dickhead? Go back with the other Hardons in
> your own group.
>

Mayor Of R'lyeh

2007-09-18, 10:33 pm

On Sep 18, 5:47 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@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.
>
> Just like I thought, WiFi is going to rule the airwaves, not 3G.
>
> That is...
>
[Snip]

Steve Jobs today ordered all Maccies to eat a pound of dog turds a day
or face excommunication. Oxford chomped down ten pounds today alone
and made 15 posts mocking anyone who doesn't eat dog turds as
'woefully behind the times'.

Oxford

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

Steve explains what detractors don't understand about 3G.

Told you so!

Watch it and weep...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntnVxHIEuv4

-

DTC

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

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.

Reality

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-55C943.15475218092007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
> 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
> Apple is delivering today. Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
> good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe did.
>
> The iPhone gets around 6 hours of talk time, 10-40 hours of normal use.
> 200 hours of standby. 3G would cut that in half. No thanks!
>
> ----

There are multiple possibilities here.

1. Oxford is just a troll. Making totally outrageous statements to incite flames...
Could anyone actually BE that stupid??

2. Oxford is one of the biggest XXXXing idiots I have seen in years.

A. EVDO is cellular. Oxford contradicts himself above.So much for the self
proclaimed genius he professes to be. PROOF HE IS A MORON.

B. Oxford, you have it DEAD wrong - basically 180 degrees wrong. The technology
that is dying and will NEVER be ubiquitous (like you contend) is WiFi.
Earthlink, San Francisco, Houston, etc, etc - it just ain't gonna happen - EVER. Now, wimax
may be something to watch, but wifi certainly will NEVER be a replacement for cellular.
To say so shows just how ignorant this dull tool Oxford really is.

3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER CHANGEABLE battery, Apple has it's XXX
hanging waaaay out on a limb. This "3G bad" shit is nothing more than double speak. Apple XXXXed up and
now CAN'T support a better technology, because of battery life and potential pissed off customers.
Your infallible Apple - ISN'T. A BIG XXXX up has been made and this is simply spin control, nothing more.

I personally thing Oxford IS a both a XXXXing idiot AND a slimy troll.

DTC

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

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....

Reality

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

"DTC" < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote in message news:yS0Ii.9096$z_5.1272@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Citations please....

How could he?

It's hard to cite COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

Or ore they just insane delusions.

Oxford

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

"Reality" <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.

Reality

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-5B0940.22203218092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Comparing Wimax with Wi-Fi

Due to the fact both WiMAX and Wi-Fi begin with the same two letters and both have a
connection to wireless connectivity and the Internet, comparisons and confusion between
the two are frequent. Despite this, the two standards are aimed at TOTALLY different applications.

WiMAX is a long-range system, covering many kilometers that typically uses licensed spectrum
to deliver a point-to-point connection to the Internet from an ISP to an end user.

Wi-Fi is a shorter range system, typically hundreds of meters, that uses unlicensed spectrum
to provide access to a network, typically covering only the network operator's own property.
Typically Wi-Fi is used by an end user to access their own network, which may or may not be
connected to the Internet.

If WiMAX provides services analogous to a cellphone, Wi-Fi is more analogous to a simple
low tech and short range cordless phone.

WiMAX and Wi-Fi have quite different Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms. WiMAX uses a mechanism
based on setting up connections between the Base Station and the user device (cell again). Each
connection is based on specific scheduling algorithms, which means that QoS parameters can be
guaranteed for each flow.

WiFi has introduced a QoS mechanism similar to fixed Ethernet, where packets can receive different priorities
based on their tags. This means that QoS is relative between packets/flows, as opposed to guaranteed.

WiMAX is highly scalable from what are called 'femto' scale remote stations to multi-sector 'maxi' scale base
that handle complex tasks of management and mobile handoff functions and include MIMO-AAS smart antenna
subsystems.

WiFi simply isn't and it NEVER WILL BE.

YOU are an idiot Oxford.

Peter Hayes

2007-09-19, 4:33 am

Reality <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:

> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER CHANGEABLE
> battery, Apple has it's XXX 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 XXXXed 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 XXXX up has been made
> and this is simply spin control, nothing more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7000370.stm

and watch the video.

Tip:- wait for the G3 iPhone...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Todd Allcock

2007-09-19, 10:33 am

At 18 Sep 2007 22:20:32 -0600 Oxford wrote:

> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
>
> wimax is wifi

How is WiMax anything like WiFi? WiFi is unlicensed, low-power, and
localized, and WiMax is wide-area, commercial and licensed- in that
way it's much closer to cellular than it is to Wi-Fi- it's simply a
wireless data service rather than wireless "voice." The fact that 70%
or so of it is being deployed by Sprint should give you a clue...

Perhaps the first two letters are confusing you? Yes- they're both"
wireless"- so is cellular- would you like it better if we called it
"WiVoice"?

> the cell network is dead, just as i've been saying.

Yep, you'll feel so much better writing a check to Sprint or
Clearwire each month instead of AT&T, huh? At least after you
replace your iPhone with a future WiMax-compatible one... (That is,
if Jobs doesn't declare WiMax as "too power hungry" and insists that
all future iPhones only have RJ-11 jacks and low-power analog modem
chipsets onboard...)

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

SMS

2007-09-19, 12:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 18 Sep 2007 22:20:32 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
>
> How is WiMax anything like WiFi? WiFi is unlicensed, low-power, and
> localized, and WiMax is wide-area, commercial and licensed- in that
> way it's much closer to cellular than it is to Wi-Fi- it's simply a
> wireless data service rather than wireless "voice." The fact that 70%
> or so of it is being deployed by Sprint should give you a clue...

That may be the problem, he doesn't understand the huge difference
between WiFi and WiMax. Or he does but is just playing dumb. No one
could be as stupid as Oxford's post make him out to be.

Oxford

2007-09-19, 12:33 pm

Here is an edited down version of yesterday's press conference. Good to
watch so you can better understand why 3G isn't up to the task for the
iPhone.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/ 0,...9,
00.htm

I think once the 3G world gets it's chip design group working at a
higher level and it becomes free to use like WiFi, they may still have a
shot, otherwise WiFi will wipe them out over the long term. (except in
extreme remote locations - where WiFi won't be for awhile)

Free WiFi makes more sense and will get rid of those pesky cell
companies that want money for basically a "free service".

Oxford

2007-09-19, 12:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> That may be the problem, he doesn't understand the huge difference
> between WiFi and WiMax. Or he does but is just playing dumb. No one
> could be as stupid as Oxford's post make him out to be.

I'm mainly playing with people's minds. It's fun to watch them squirm.

WiFi can go up to 3 miles now, so it sounds like you aren't keeping
track of developments.

Todd Allcock

2007-09-19, 3:33 pm

At 19 Sep 2007 11:10:30 -0600 Oxford wrote:

> WiFi can go up to 3 miles now, so it sounds like you aren't keeping
> track of developments.

Yes, various tricks will greatly increase the range of WiFi.
Unfortunately while extending the range of fixed APs is not very
difficult, getting portable devices, like your iPhone, to reach back
to them is not as trivial...

--

"Stop bitching that Apple cut the price of the iPhone...
Its not a price cut, its a repeal on the Nerd Tax. If you
didn't have to be the first on your block to have the
latest gizmo, you'd now have an extra $200 to spend on
your imaginary girlfriend..."

-Bill Maher 9/14/2007

ZnU

2007-09-19, 3:33 pm

In article <tR0Ii.4642$6o2.3735@trnddc05>,
"Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:

[snip]

> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER
> CHANGEABLE battery, Apple has it's XXX 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

Dennis Ferguson

2007-09-19, 3:33 pm

On 2007-09-19, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
> John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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

Steve Sobol

2007-09-19, 3:33 pm

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-09-19, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> What fraction of cell phone users actually carry multiple batteries
> around? I'd be surprised if it was a full 1%.

Here I go, getting sucked into this stupid discussion again. :)

I'm not an Apple detractor. I've been a fan of Apple since the Apple IIe. I
think the latest Macs are neat, especially since OS X is a Unix derivative
and I'm a Unix guy. :)

I'm not even an iPhone detractor. I have *no* opinion on the iPhone since I
have never used one, and probably will never use one because I'm not a
subscriber to the only US carrier that sells it.

In my opinion, the problem isn't day-to-day usage of the phone. I actually
agree that most people probably don't carry around spare batteries.

My problem is what you're expected to do when the battery finally dies for
good. I'm going to spend how much on a battery... and then instead of putting
it in myself, I have to send the phone to Apple and either

** pay extra for a loaner, or
** get someone to lend me an unused phone, or
** just go without the phone until Apple sends mine back.

This is not a very customer-friendly policy.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield

Rashputin

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

>
> 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.

ah, so the flaw is related to obsolete cell towers, not the more modern
approach of using higher density, but open 802.11 protocols. good to
know.

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Rashputin" <rashputin@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Isn't he the same guy who took over the desktop PC market back in the
> eighties?

not sure what you mean, Steve left Apple long before he had a chance to
"take over the pc market", plus IBM was quite powerful at the time. No
Cell Company is as powerful as IBM was in the 60's 70's, so this will be
easy.

Apple now owns the entire high end of the PC market, it will do the same
with Cell Phones, you can bank on it.

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> So by all this, the people that were waiting for the next model that was
> rumored to have 3G is out of the question ?
>
> Look for another price cut in the not to near future. :)
> When they get down to 200-250 I'll go check them out again.
> Doing the web at 100K Is not fun.

but 90% of the time you'll be on regular WiFi, so speed is FASTER than
3G... being on "2G" is only in desperate times, away from home or office
or restaurants, etc.

Your phone calls don't make any difference, neither do email, google
maps, etc. You'd only notice 3G speed difference if you surf a lot out
in remote areas... where ironically 3G won't be for years, if ever.

Kevin Weaver

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

How do you figure I'll be on Wi-Fi ?
If Wi-Fi were everywhere like you think it is, then why even have any other
connection in the phone ? Just use Wi-Fi right ?

Wrong, Drive down some hi-way and see how much Wi-Fi you get.

Point is, He is making excuses for not adding it. And that's going to be a
downfall.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-8C07E8.16105019092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> but 90% of the time you'll be on regular WiFi, so speed is FASTER than
> 3G... being on "2G" is only in desperate times, away from home or office
> or restaurants, etc.
>
> Your phone calls don't make any difference, neither do email, google
> maps, etc. You'd only notice 3G speed difference if you surf a lot out
> in remote areas... where ironically 3G won't be for years, if ever.

Todd Allcock

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

At 19 Sep 2007 14:58:32 -0400 ZnU wrote:

> What fraction of cell phone users actually carry multiple batteries
> around? I'd be surprised if it was a full 1%.

Agreed- under normal circumstances. However, as a user of a PPC
phone with a godawful battery life, I DO pack a spare on vacations,
business trips or anytime I know I'll be away from convenient power
(i.e. camping.) I even have a double-capacity battery that comes
with it's own battery cover (with a hideous "camel hump" to hold the
oversized battery!) that I switch to on such occasions.

> Why do so many of Apple's detractors completely ignore the way real
> users actually use products?

One could also ask "why do Apple supporters make ridiculous
justifications for any design flaw or omission, and try to paint them
as advantages?"

Can't we just say "nice phone- too bad about the stupid non-
replaceable battery, though..." Why does disagreeing about ANY
aspect of an Apple design automatically place one in the "Apple
detractor" camp?

But, to answer your question as asked, perhaps it's because it
illustrates a certain "we know better than everyone else" hubris
that Apple sometimes seems to demonstrate- despite the fact that
every other cellphone has a removable battery (for a variety of
reasons)
Apple "knows best" and made one that doesn't. Likewise with SJ's
recent "3G eats too much power" nonsense. Other manufacturers might
simply let power-conscious users TURN IT OFF, (like WiFi) rather than
omit a useful feature "for our own good."

While I understand the reasons for not making it replaceable, I
suspect most "real users" would happily trade a 10-20% reduction in
battery capacity for the ability to swap it out with a fully charged
one and eliminate any downtime. The more devices a handheld can
replace, or more functions it performs, the more we "real users" rely
on it to be working, not sitting in the charge/sync cradle!

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Hertz_Donut

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in message
news:SlhIi.6052$FO2.2946@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> How do you figure I'll be on Wi-Fi ?
> If Wi-Fi were everywhere like you think it is, then why even have any
> other connection in the phone ? Just use Wi-Fi right ?
>
> Wrong, Drive down some hi-way and see how much Wi-Fi you get.

The thought of some brain-damaged idiot driving the freeway while trying to
use 3G on his phone is frightening.
I hope legislation is passed in each and every state to protect the innocent
from ignorant dweebs downloading
or surfing the net instead of paying attention to traffic.

Anyone caught surfing the web, downloading, etc while driveling should have
a minimum one year license suspension.
Second offense should result in permanent revocation of driving license.

I pray you don't wipe out some poor family while you are driving while using
3G.

What an XXX!

Honu

DTC

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> Steve explains what detractors don't understand about 3G.
>
> Told you so!
>
> Watch it and weep...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntnVxHIEuv4

Oh yeah...I'm in tears all right. Laughing at him not understanding the
communications landscape.

"The EDGE network works really great for the apps on most phones..."

Could it be the apps were taylored for a slow network instead of a fast
network and so many more apps might be unusable on EDGE?

"It perfect for (Google maps)..." if you don't mind some hardly better than
dial up modem speeds. But 3G is much better.

3G has and will always have better coverage than WiFi.

DTC

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> ah, so the flaw is related to obsolete cell towers, not the more modern
> approach of using higher density, but open 802.11

Ah, so the flaw is thinking that a thousand times more WiFi towers is less
expensive to deploy than cell towers.

DTC

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> extreme remote locations - where WiFi won't be for awhile)

Even if non-remote locations WiFi won't be there ever.

> Free WiFi makes more sense and will get rid of those pesky cell
> companies that want money for basically a "free service".

You clearly do not understand the difference between cellular and WiFi.

DTC

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> WiFi can go up to 3 miles now, so it sounds like you aren't keeping
> track of developments.

Citations please.

Let me explain a few things that you obviously do not understand.

WiFi can certainly go fifteen miles...
IF you have a 20 dB gain direction antenna at the far end.
IF the antenna is like 20 to 40 feet up in the air.
IF you can live with less than a one Mbps connection.
IF you can live with lots of path fade downtime.

WiFi can certainly go three miles...
IF you have a rooftop antenna.
IF you don't use a VoIP handset at street level, much less inside.
IF you can live with less than a 5 Mbps connection.
IF you live line of sight within three miles of a tower.
IF you don't intend to use a laptop on a park bench.
IF there is no additional RF interference.

Reality

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote in message news:Cp2Ii.4655$6o2.33@trnddc05...
>
> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-5B0940.22203218092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> 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.
>
> Comparing Wimax with Wi-Fi
>
> Due to the fact both WiMAX and Wi-Fi begin with the same two letters and both have a
> connection to wireless connectivity and the Internet, comparisons and confusion between
> the two are frequent. Despite this, the two standards are aimed at TOTALLY different applications.
>
> WiMAX is a long-range system, covering many kilometers that typically uses licensed spectrum
> to deliver a point-to-point connection to the Internet from an ISP to an end user.
>
> Wi-Fi is a shorter range system, typically hundreds of meters, that uses unlicensed spectrum
> to provide access to a network, typically covering only the network operator's own property.
> Typically Wi-Fi is used by an end user to access their own network, which may or may not be
> connected to the Internet.
>
> If WiMAX provides services analogous to a cellphone, Wi-Fi is more analogous to a simple
> low tech and short range cordless phone.
>
> WiMAX and Wi-Fi have quite different Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms. WiMAX uses a mechanism
> based on setting up connections between the Base Station and the user device (cell again). Each
> connection is based on specific scheduling algorithms, which means that QoS parameters can be
> guaranteed for each flow.
>
> WiFi has introduced a QoS mechanism similar to fixed Ethernet, where packets can receive different priorities
> based on their tags. This means that QoS is relative between packets/flows, as opposed to guaranteed.
>
> WiMAX is highly scalable from what are called 'femto' scale remote stations to multi-sector 'maxi' scale base
> that handle complex tasks of management and mobile handoff functions and include MIMO-AAS smart antenna
> subsystems.
>
> WiFi simply isn't and it NEVER WILL BE.
>
> YOU are an idiot Oxford.
>

Interesting....... our troll / fanboy Oxford is completely silent, for once.

The "expert" in ALL things here - isn't after all. Really quite the opposite.

The silence speaks VOLUMES in this case, huh?

IMHO IIRC

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

In news:6TiIi.50999$Um6.36988@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> typed:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Ah, so the flaw is thinking that a thousand times more WiFi towers is less
> expensive to deploy than cell towers.

But according to Oxford WiFi is available everywhere already - EXCEPT where
you and I are. :D

SMS

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Hertz_Donut wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in message
> news:SlhIi.6052$FO2.2946@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> The thought of some brain-damaged idiot driving the freeway while trying
> to use 3G on his phone is frightening.

But it's even worse with EDGE as their attention is diverted for a much
longer period of time.

Ness_net

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"DTC" < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote in message news:0ViIi.51000$Um6.45623@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Even if non-remote locations WiFi won't be there ever.
>
>
> You clearly do not understand the difference between cellular and WiFi.

Oxford clearly (from his spew over the past weeks here) doesn't understand ANY of the
subjects he claims to be an "expert" in....

His posts have demonstrated a number of things.

Troll? Certainly!!

Fanboy? OMG - one of the most blind to reality I've seen in a while. (see below)

"Expert"? No, the exact opposite. He showed a complete lack of knowledge so far.
Every post digs his deep 'I'm stupid hole' that much deeper.

Back to #1... There is always the possibility that he is one of those twisted troll types.
Putting out the most outrageous shit, just to illicit responses. Hard to tell. Certainly most
all that Oxford has posted in the past weeks has been completely devoid of ANY
basis in reality. Now.... is it deliberate, or is it rabid fanboy blindness?

Reality

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in message news:Xrednankl_tJXGz
bnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "DTC" < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote in message news:0ViIi.51000$Um6.45623@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Oxford clearly (from his spew over the past weeks here) doesn't understand ANY of the
> subjects he claims to be an "expert" in....
>
> His posts have demonstrated a number of things.
>
> Troll? Certainly!!
>
> Fanboy? OMG - one of the most blind to reality I've seen in a while. (see below)
>
> "Expert"? No, the exact opposite. He showed a complete lack of knowledge so far.
> Every post digs his deep 'I'm stupid hole' that much deeper.
>
> Back to #1... There is always the possibility that he is one of those twisted troll types.
> Putting out the most outrageous shit, just to illicit responses. Hard to tell. Certainly most
> all that Oxford has posted in the past weeks has been completely devoid of ANY
> basis in reality. Now.... is it deliberate, or is it rabid fanboy blindness?

I vote troll. No one is THAT stupid.... (or are they)?????

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:

>
> Interesting....... our troll / fanboy Oxford is completely silent, for once.
>
> The "expert" in ALL things here - isn't after all. Really quite the opposite.
>
> The silence speaks VOLUMES in this case, huh?

I'm never "silent" I just choose to shine a bright light where ignorance
is common place. (like the current cell phone industry)

You'll get it in time "Reality"... I sense you have the intelligence to
understand what I'm saying. I'll give you a few more months...

In the meantime...

if you want to try out the iPhone on the cheap, here is your chance...
go to the below link... then on the right side, click on "special
deals", then "clearance" .... not.... "iphone".... and there you will
find the 4GB iPhones for $299.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...ects/AppleStore

Then, on the "cheap"... when you activate it through iTunes... choose...
999-99-9999 for your SSN number then you will be routed to "Go Phone"
mode... (no 2 year contract - and for sure on a minute to minute basis
more expensive) BUT if you are mainly going to use the WiFi surfing,
email, iPod, google maps etc it's going to be a more robust product than
the iPod Touch. (minus the extra 4-12GB memory of course)

so, something to ponder before apple runs out of them...

the specs:

iPhone, 4GB
Multi-touch display with full QWERTY soft keyboard
Safari web browser
Email access
Built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth
Holds up to 1,000 songs
Up to 8 hours of talk time and 250 hours of standby time
2.0 megapixel camera
4.8 ounces
4.5 x 2.4 x 0.46 inches
Apple earphones with built-in microphone
USB 2.0 cable

Price: $299.00

Estimated Ship:
Within 24 hours
Free Shipping

Todd Allcock

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

At 19 Sep 2007 13:45:30 -1000 Hertz_Donut wrote:

> The thought of some brain-damaged idiot driving the freeway while
> trying to use 3G on his phone is frightening.

If you actually stopped thinking that every mobile phone user is a
brain-addled teenager, you might conjure up a safe mobile 3G scenario-
i.e. the use of Google Maps, for example. The live maps/traffic
updates typically lag behind real-time at highway speeds when using
EDGE.

> I pray you don't wipe out some poor family while you are driving
> while using 3G.
>
> What an XXX!

Show some imagination instead of jumping to a conclusion. The poster
you're calling an XXX could be using navigation apps that don't
require his input while driving, or might even be a PASSENGER!
Surely you don't have a problem with my wife checking HER e-mail in
the passenger seat while I'M driving, do you?

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Reality

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

Reality

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A3DEF6.19233219092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm never "silent" I just choose to shine a bright light where ignorance
> is common place. (like the current cell phone industry)
>
> You'll get it in time "Reality"... I sense you have the intelligence to
> understand what I'm saying. I'll give you a few more months...
>
> In the meantime...
>
> if you want to try out the iPhone on the cheap, here is your chance...
> go to the below link... then on the right side, click on "special
> deals", then "clearance" .... not.... "iphone".... and there you will
> find the 4GB iPhones for $299.

Sorry, your "bright light" must have burnt out.
It isn't shining a single photon of truth on anything.

And, thanks but no thanks. I wouldn't use AT&T if it was free.

In fact in the past it was free for me. I had a free company phone on AT&T.
It was so incredibly horrible, I kept using my VZW phone and avoided AT&T.
I'd rather pay and have good service.

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

Ah, a mistake on your part. I consider driving while on a Cell Phone
illegal. So no wonder you are confused on this issue.
[color=darkred]
>
> But it's even worse with EDGE as their attention is diverted for a much
> longer period of time.

Nah, nobody should use a cellphone when driving. It should be a felony.

I always swerve into them... blast my horn and flip them off when i see
someone driving with a cellphone in their ear. Total idiots, all of them.

Women especially drive about 10 miles per hour "slower" when talking,
and this very dangerous for everyone, so Cellphones "while driving" on
the highway / and road illegal is a top priority by anyone who is smart.

It would save 4,500-6,000 lives a year.

Stupid Cellphone Companies!

-

Oxford

2007-09-19, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
> But according to Oxford WiFi is available everywhere already - EXCEPT where
> you and I are.

if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
service...

you'll have it in time of course, but most Mac users have free service
now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal with
the "old world" you seem to be living in.

-

IMHO IIRC

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

In news:colalovesmacs-2EDC22.21182819092007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
> lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
> service...
>
> you'll have it in time of course, but most Mac users have free service
> now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal with
> the "old world" you seem to be living in.
>
> -

Sounds like Cable internet, Satalite internet, and dialup internet are also
in trouble.
Why would anyone pay when they can just use FREE WiFi to surf the net.

No Internet bills and no cell phone bills - Just FREE WiFi - Can hardly
wait. :D

ZnU

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

In article <G7iIi.7927$CG1.5592@fe103.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

[snip]

> One could also ask "why do Apple supporters make ridiculous
> justifications for any design flaw or omission, and try to paint them
> as advantages?"

Not many people try to paint them as "advantages".

However, it's clear that Apple pays quite a lot of attention to
real-world use cases. In the Mac market, for instance, it's pretty clear
that for every Mac model, Apple starts with a specific type of user in
mind, and builds a machine that makes reasonable trade-offs for that
user. A company like Dell, in contrast, seems to design machines more by
taking a generic box and figuring out the best specs they can give it at
a given price point.

At least half of the criticism of Apple that I see on a day to day basis
involves ignoring the use cases that Apple clearly has in mind for its
products, and making fairly useless comparisons based on which spec
sheet has bigger numbers or more items.

[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

Oxford

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> My problem is what you're expected to do when the battery finally dies for
> good. I'm going to spend how much on a battery... and then instead of putting
> it in myself, I have to send the phone to Apple and either

So you think $20 bucks for a new battery over 3-5 years of use is a
problem? I just don't see your reasoning here. You think people should
spend 3 or 4 times as much if they had a non-Apple phone? is that what
you want?

> ** pay extra for a loaner, or

You don't have to pay for a lower, just put in a new battery for $20, it
takes less than 5 minutes.

> ** get someone to lend me an unused phone, or

Why?

> ** just go without the phone until Apple sends mine back.

Why?

> This is not a very customer-friendly policy.

It's only because you don't understand that replacing the battery
doesn't require taking it to Apple. Any iPod vendor will do it in a few
minutes. Or do it yourself.

This is a 3-5 year in the future problem anyway, and by that time, MOST
iPhone users will be using the 512GB 3D version anyway.

Please THINK before you post. Thanks!

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

At 19 Sep 2007 21:18:28 -0600 Oxford wrote:
> most Mac users have free service
> now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal
> with the "old world" you seem to be living in.

Just to clarify, you're saying "most Mac users" don't subscribe to
any broadband service provider, but instead just mooch their internet
service from their neighbors' unsecured WiFi APs?

Hmmm... do the prices of Macs leave so little money left in your
budget you can't afford an ISP?

Snide comments aside, this is where your little WiFi utopian fantasy
always falls apart. Despite your mantra, the actual _provider_ of
all this "free WiFi," you tout, be it one's own home AP, the local
coffeeshop, your work LAN, etc. is paying some ISP for some type of
broadband service.

I can scan my neighborhood right now and find six APs, including
mine. All but one (including mine) are secure, one is open. All six
of us are paying for our broadband service, so none of this WiFi is
"free" to us. When I first moved to this neighborhood four years
ago, there were only three APs in range (including mine) but two were
open. So, arguably, while there is more WiFi here today, there's
actually less "free WiFi" as users get more savvy about security.
That seems increasingly true as I travel. I used to have little
problem getting online in virtually any wll-heeled suburb thanks to
open APs, but today I find myself relying on cellular data much more
often- far more home WiFi networks are secure than just two or three
years ago.

Couple that with the recent newsworthy muni-WiFi failures, and it
looks like the free WiFi movement may have already peaked and is on
the decline. Just top-of-my-head unscientific "gut" data, I'd say
over half, maybe even two-thirds of "neighborhood" APs I'd find 3-4
years ago were open, while today it's maybe 1 in 6 if I'm lucky.

In addition, despite your dire predictions, all cellular providers
have higher data ARPUs than ever before. Although obviously
anecdotal "evidence," I see far more people today using cellular data
cards and dongles than I did even a year or two ago. So, in reality,
cellular data seems to be on the rise, while "free" WiFi is on the
decline- most businesses that would want to offer free WiFi to
customers already do, and most homes and businesses are now smart
enough to lock down their networks.

--

"Stop bitching that Apple cut the price of the iPhone...
Its not a price cut, it's a repeal on the Nerd Tax. If you
didn't have to be the first on your block to have the
latest gizmo, you'd now have an extra $200 to spend on
your imaginary girlfriend..."
-Bill Maher 9/14/2007

Oxford

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> Sounds like Cable internet, Satalite internet, and dialup internet are also
> in trouble.
> Why would anyone pay when they can just use FREE WiFi to surf the net.
>
> No Internet bills and no cell phone bills - Just FREE WiFi - Can hardly
> wait. :D

good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
more than $5 a month for full access.

This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
old Landline companies.

This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.

We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.

It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.

Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!

-

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

At 19 Sep 2007 21:08:58 -0600 Oxford wrote:

> Ah, a mistake on your part. I consider driving while on a Cell
> Phone illegal.

Um, legality (or lack of it) is a fact, not an opinion to "consider."

You could, perhaps, consider it "morally reprehensible," but
something is either legal or isn't. Having said that, of course,
you've shown repeated difficulty distinguishing between opinion
and fact, so why should we be surprised this time?

> So no wonder you are confused on this issue.

No wonder why YOU'RE so confused- not all of us are so shunned by
the rest of society that we always find ourselves alone in
automobiles like you apparently do.

Automobile PASSENGERS can certainly make use of ubiquitous celluar
data without breaking either any laws or codes of moral conduct.

--

"Stop bitching that Apple cut the price of the iPhone...
Its not a price cut, it's a repeal on the Nerd Tax. If you
didn't have to be the first on your block to have the
latest gizmo, you'd now have an extra $200 to spend on
your imaginary girlfriend..."

-Bill Maher 9/14/2007

The Ghost of General Lee

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:04:56 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com>
wrote:

>"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
>good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
>saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
>more than $5 a month for full access.

First you say it'll be free, now you say we must "contribute"? Isn't
that the same thing some politicians at one time said of taxes, that
they were "contributions"? At least you're finally realizing there is
no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for the
infrastructure, support, maintenance, etc. for all that "free" Wifi
service.

>This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
>old Landline companies.
>
>This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
>before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
>free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.

That sounds a lot like theft of service to me. They were criminals,
pure and simple.

>We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.

Get back to stealing???

>It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.

With Captain Oxturd Ignorance leading the charge!

>Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!

Your battleship has already been sunk, "Captain." Game over.

Oxford

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:

>
> First you say it'll be free, now you say we must "contribute"? Isn't
> that the same thing some politicians at one time said of taxes, that
> they were "contributions"? At least you're finally realizing there is
> no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for the
> infrastructure, support, maintenance, etc. for all that "free" Wifi
> service.

you only contribute if you want to be part of this great social
experiment. if you want total freedom, go for it.

>
> That sounds a lot like theft of service to me. They were criminals,
> pure and simple.

no, last time I looked 1 & 0's are free, it's only the middlemen that
try and trick you into thinking otherwise. One big grid of linked WiFi
basestations and you have the end of several obsolete industries, and
that should be the goal of everyone.

Remember buggy whips and horse shit in the streets several decades ago?
Nope... just as people won't remember "paying" for internet access in
the next decade or so.

>
> Get back to stealing???

exchanging 1 & 0's for free is stealing? sounds like you don't know
where all this is headed. You'll learn.

>
> With Captain Oxturd Ignorance leading the charge!
>
>
> Your battleship has already been sunk, "Captain." Game over.

You are scared of the future, I'm not. It's plain and simple.

-

BruceR

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

ZnU wrote:
> In article <tR0Ii.4642$6o2.3735@trnddc05>,
> "Reality" <reality@sucks.dontit.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> 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]

I carry an extra battery for my phone and an extra battery for my MP3
player and an extra battery for my camera. The way I travel I use those
extra batteries frequently. Am I part of 1% or 50%? Neither you or I
know but at least for ME - I won't consider a "sealed battery" product.
If Apple solved that and offered the phone through TMo, I might consider
it, but based on my service experience with an Apple Mini I'd be very
wary.

BruceR

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
> lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
> service...
>
> you'll have it in time of course, but most Mac users have free service
> now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal
> with the "old world" you seem to be living in.
>
> -
Hmm, now I'm confused. Let's see, the cheapest house on my street is a
tear down listed at $4.5 million but I live in a "poor area" because we
don't have free wi-fi and, apparently, no one on the street owns a MAC
because MAC owners won't put up with "poor living standards." Have I
got that right now?

Peter Hayes

2007-09-20, 4:33 am

Hertz_Donut <somewhere@outhere.net> wrote:

> Anyone caught surfing the web, downloading, etc while driveling should have
> a minimum one year license suspension.

Boring other people by driveling into a mobile phone isn't sufficiently
dangerous to warrant a minimum one year licence suspension... :-)

But using a mobile while driving in the UK gets you a £60 ($120) fine
and three penalty points.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Peter Hayes

2007-09-20, 7:33 am

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> most homes and businesses are now smart
> enough to lock down their networks.

This should put an end to the debate about the legality of leeching
someone's wifi bandwidth.

The use of cracking tools to break into someone's secured wifi is
definitely illegal.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Oxford

2007-09-20, 10:33 am

"BruceR" < razrbruce@NOgmailSPA
M.com> wrote:

> I carry an extra battery for my phone and an extra battery for my MP3
> player and an extra battery for my camera. The way I travel I use those
> extra batteries frequently. Am I part of 1% or 50%? Neither you or I
> know but at least for ME - I won't consider a "sealed battery" product.
> If Apple solved that and offered the phone through TMo, I might consider
> it, but based on my service experience with an Apple Mini I'd be very
> wary.

then get an extra battery for your iphone / ipod. lots of companies make
them. and the mini? service experience? those machines are easy to open
and work on.

sounds like you aren't educated on how Apple products operate.

Carl Kaufmann

2007-09-20, 12:33 pm

Scott wrote:
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
> news:colalovesmacs-4EE5B2.18372318092007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>
> Oh, my stupid little troll. You need to learn more before posting in the
> big peoples' groups. 3G is a generic term for technology, not a platform
> like CDMA2000. EVDO is most certainly 3G technology by every definition
> known to man.
>
> And keep spouting about wi-fi. Chicago and San Francisco say hello- they
> will bne joined by more major motropolitan areas by the end of the year.

From USAToday:

Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi

CHICAGO — Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or
free wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because
they are proving to be too costly and complicated.

Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed
Wi-Fi networks on hold.

"Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon
Valley Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's
high-tech corridor.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wirele...9-19-wifi_N.htm

Kevin Weaver

2007-09-20, 12:33 pm

Yeah that's going to work. Carry an extra battery. If doing that, You better
carry a soldering iron, pry tools, solder, etc.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C4FD12.07403420092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "BruceR" < razrbruce@NOgmailSPA
M.com> wrote:
>
>
> then get an extra battery for your iphone / ipod. lots of companies make
> them. and the mini? service experience? those machines are easy to open
> and work on.
>
> sounds like you aren't educated on how Apple products operate.

BruceR

2007-09-20, 3:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> "BruceR" < razrbruce@NOgmailSPA
M.com> wrote:
>
>
> then get an extra battery for your iphone / ipod. lots of companies
> make them. and the mini? service experience? those machines are easy
> to open and work on.
>
> sounds like you aren't educated on how Apple products operate.

I'm educated enough to know that the battery can't be changed in under
10 seconds. That's what I need for a phone. And as far as my service
experience, we discussed that weeks ago - you even "verified" the ticket
number.

kdt

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote in message
news:ZMxIi.3499$ZA5.2464@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Yeah that's going to work. Carry an extra battery. If doing that, You
> better carry a soldering iron, pry tools, solder, etc.

You need a soldering iron to connect a battery pack to the dock connector?

Robert A. Fink, M. D.

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:45:30 -1000, "Hertz_Donut"
<somewhere@outhere.net> wrote:

>The thought of some brain-damaged idiot driving the freeway while trying to
>use 3G on his phone is frightening.
>I hope legislation is passed in each and every state to protect the innocent
>from ignorant dweebs downloading
>or surfing the net instead of paying attention to traffic.
>
>Anyone caught surfing the web, downloading, etc while driveling should have
>a minimum one year license suspension.
>Second offense should result in permanent revocation of driving license.
>
>I pray you don't wipe out some poor family while you are driving while using
>3G.

Some of us would like to be using 3G while somebody else is driving.

Best,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

Robert A. Fink, M. D.

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:18:09 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

>But, to answer your question as asked, perhaps it's because it
>illustrates a certain "we know better than everyone else" hubris
>that Apple sometimes seems to demonstrate- despite the fact that
>every other cellphone has a removable battery (for a variety of
>reasons)
>Apple "knows best" and made one that doesn't. Likewise with SJ's
>recent "3G eats too much power" nonsense. Other manufacturers might
>simply let power-conscious users TURN IT OFF, (like WiFi) rather than
>omit a useful feature "for our own good."

Yes, this is typical of Apple and many of its communicants (I call
them such because Apple-philia appears to me more of a *religion* than
a preference). The thing about 3G "eating too much power" is
reminiscent of the Austrian Emperor's remark about Mozart's music (in
the movie "Amadeus") having "too many notes".

>
>While I understand the reasons for not making it replaceable, I
>suspect most "real users" would happily trade a 10-20% reduction in
>battery capacity for the ability to swap it out with a fully charged
>one and eliminate any downtime. The more devices a handheld can
>replace, or more functions it performs, the more we "real users" rely
>on it to be working, not sitting in the charge/sync cradle!

So true.

Best,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., FACS, P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, CA 94704-2636 USA
510-849-2555

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

Scott

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-2EDC22.21182819092007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
> lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
> service...
>
> you'll have it in time of course,

Not in Chicago, San Francisoc or Colorado Springs, to name a few. And
look- those three cities hardly qualify as a "poor area."

> but most Mac users have free service
> now.

No more than PC users,

> they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal
> with the "old world" you seem to be living in.
>
> -
>

Apparently they do- you're posting here.

DTC

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> I'm never "silent" I just choose to shine a bright light

You mean you shine darkness?

> where ignorance is common place.

Kettle - Black

DTC

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 19 Sep 2007 21:08:58 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
>
> You could, perhaps, consider it "morally reprehensible," but
> something is either legal or isn't.

Apparently he doesn't consider reckless driving illegal.

Scott

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-FE0645.23045619092007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
> saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future...

Not in Chicage, San Francisco or Colorado Springs, just to name a few.
In fact, the call for free wifi has become a mere whisper. Stop living
in the past and join the real world.

> where nobody contributes
> more than $5 a month for full access.

Such old school thinking. And yuou call yourself cutting edge. What a
lie.

>
> This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and
> the old Landline companies.

Now that is funny. Those three industries spend more in lobbying costs
than Apple makes.

>
> This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976,
> even before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes
> to make free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.

Living in the past again, Skippy.

>
> We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.

We as a "people" never had that goal.

>
> It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.

You forgot to include reality on your list.

>
> Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!
>
> -
>

DTC

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
> lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
> service...

I *SALE* WiFi service, as in "its not free".

My biggest client bases are in $300,000 to $500,000 housing developments.

Todd Allcock

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

At 20 Sep 2007 18:19:28 -0400 kdt wrote:

> You need a soldering iron to connect a battery pack to the dock
> connector?

Oh, you mean one of those stupid external battery extenders! Great
idea, I'll snap it in my Utility Belt between the Bat-Rope and the
Bat-Grappling-hook...

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Scott

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-6471BC.00023920092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
>
>
> you only contribute if you want to be part of this great social
> experiment. if you want total freedom, go for it.
>
>
> no, last time I looked 1 & 0's are free, it's only the middlemen that
> try and trick you into thinking otherwise. One big grid of linked WiFi
> basestations and you have the end of several obsolete industries, and
> that should be the goal of everyone.

Really? Who's gonna backhaul all that traffic? What free network
currently exists that can handle peak use of all of your basestations at
acceptable speeds? How you propose getting around those sections of the
backbone that are run for a profit?

You continue to show a junior high school knowledge about the subject.
You are living proof that Apple markets to idiots. That's why all of
the important computer work around the world is done on a PC.

>
> Remember buggy whips and horse shit in the streets several decades
> ago? Nope... just as people won't remember "paying" for internet
> access in the next decade or so.

Nope- your analogy would only apply if people didn't pay for the horse
and buggy replacement in today's world. Whoever started calling you
Oxturd was on point- the shit that you spew smells to high heaven.

>
>
> exchanging 1 & 0's for free is stealing? sounds like you don't know
> where all this is headed. You'll learn.
>
>
> You are scared of the future, I'm not. It's plain and simple.

I wasn't scared when I was eight years old either and wanted to be an
astronaut. You'll start understanding the real world right before
you're old enough to drive.

>
> -
>

Scott

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

"BruceR" < razrbruce@NOgmailSPA
M.com> wrote in news:46f222b9$0$2883
4
$4c368faf@roadrunner
.com:

>
>
> Oxford wrote:
> Hmm, now I'm confused. Let's see, the cheapest house on my street is a
> tear down listed at $4.5 million but I live in a "poor area" because we
> don't have free wi-fi and, apparently, no one on the street owns a MAC
> because MAC owners won't put up with "poor living standards." Have I
> got that right now?
>
>

Damn, Bruce- sorry for your tough luck. I'm a welfare recipient compared
to you- houses here continue to appreciate by only 6-7% a year and the area
has one of the highest internet penetration rates in the country. If MAC
owners won't live in your conditions, I'm sure I'll never see on around
here.

Poverty rules.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

In article
<colalovesmacs-C4FD12.07403420092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> then get an extra battery for your iphone / ipod. lots of companies make
> them.

References?

kdt

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:P_CIi.24$hm4.16@fe085.usenetserver.com...
> At 20 Sep 2007 18:19:28 -0400 kdt wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, you mean one of those stupid external battery extenders! Great
> idea, I'll snap it in my Utility Belt between the Bat-Rope and the
> Bat-Grappling-hook...
>
>

But you are already carrying around two or three batteries according to you
so what's the difference?

Scott

2007-09-20, 10:33 pm

"kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:CGGIi.114355$pu2.14585@bignews1.bellsouth.net:

>
> "Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
> news:P_CIi.24$hm4.16@fe085.usenetserver.com...
>
> But you are already carrying around two or three batteries according
> to you so what's the difference?
>
>
>

But the batteries he carries go directly into the phone and don't plug into
it. It's called ease of use and maintaining form. Apple obviously feels
that the average user of the iPhone is too challenged to manage their own
battery. Having to use an external extender simply makes you look like a
dweeb.

Todd Allcock

2007-09-21, 4:33 am

At 20 Sep 2007 23:14:45 -0400 kdt wrote:

> But you are already carrying around two or three batteries according
> to you so what's the difference?

Size, weight, and not having to try to use a phone with an umbilical
cord tied to a plastic sausage filled with AAs!

A spare battery for my phone is smaller than a saltine cracker (but a
little thicker) and tucks easily into my wallet. An external
"battery pack on a rope" will not.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Edwin

2007-09-21, 12:33 pm

On Sep 18, 7