jholzner
Sep 16, 02:03 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
Uber
I don't think scrapping the ground up design will hurt. The iPod was made mostly from off the shelf parts when it was introd. but it still was awesome. Hopefully they can do the same thing with their phone. My contract doesn't expire until December 2007 but I want one...and I don't even know what it is yet.
afd
Apr 11, 03:10 AM
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading that Apple were charging around $5 for AirPlay licensing, which makes the $40 seem even more of a rip-off. You'd think that they'd adsorb even the $5, seems like a small price to pay to make your device more desirable to all the iOS and iTunes users out there.
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading that Apple were charging around $5 for AirPlay licensing, which makes the $40 seem even more of a rip-off. You'd think that they'd adsorb even the $5, seems like a small price to pay to make your device more desirable to all the iOS and iTunes users out there.
Evangelion
Aug 29, 03:37 AM
this goes to show how behind apple is in updating.
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
Yes, Apple is doomed because the are few days behind in announcing their new laptops :rolleyes:. Obviously hordes of people are rushing to buy Toshibas and Dells (which might not ship for several weeks, for all we know) as we speak, and unless Apple IMMEDIATELY updates their products, they are doomed. DOOMED I tells ya!
clearly they arent ready to adapt to an intel platform. the cant even make simple processor adjustments on time!
all the major companies have made this transition.
Yes, Apple is doomed because the are few days behind in announcing their new laptops :rolleyes:. Obviously hordes of people are rushing to buy Toshibas and Dells (which might not ship for several weeks, for all we know) as we speak, and unless Apple IMMEDIATELY updates their products, they are doomed. DOOMED I tells ya!
revfife
Sep 12, 02:33 PM
The headphones look different on the specs page, new earbuds mayhaps?
Yeah, Steve said something about a new design on the standard Apple headphones
Yeah, Steve said something about a new design on the standard Apple headphones
zim
Sep 16, 08:57 AM
* Firmware of iPod nano just means nano's iTunes and iTunes for ROKR are likely built from the same codebase. Remember neither are based on the Portalplayer software, and Apple isn't going to reinvent the wheel. "iTunes Phone Driver" refers to the ROKR driver, and Apple's website specifically says that's what it's for. Uploading of pictures and other features in the latest iTunes Phone Driver may simply point to updates in iTunes for Phones, or even making the code more generic. All of these pieces of evidence have logical explanations that, on occasion, contradict the notion they're part of some roll-out of an iPhone. The only evidence we have for an iPhone is actually that people like Arn are convinced that their sources are reliable. Ok, I believe you Arn. But you'll forgive me for not believing the story makes any sense.
I agree with you and what you said about the Firmware in my opinioin is just that, refering to the ROKR... in fact when I updated an old machine it actaully said that as the description in the software update.
And if Apple does make a phone then great! Our market here in the US sucks for phones and phone services. I had a friend visit from China and she had this amazing motorola... all touch screen, did her email, web, everything on it.. when she charged something she got an auto email saying you just charged something, it was amazing.
I think if anything needs to change here in the US to make phones any better it is our service plans, not adding in cameras and iTunes abilities... those are just gimmicks to make you think you have a better service. I think apple could make a better phone but it would be limited to what our US service plans can offer.
I agree with you and what you said about the Firmware in my opinioin is just that, refering to the ROKR... in fact when I updated an old machine it actaully said that as the description in the software update.
And if Apple does make a phone then great! Our market here in the US sucks for phones and phone services. I had a friend visit from China and she had this amazing motorola... all touch screen, did her email, web, everything on it.. when she charged something she got an auto email saying you just charged something, it was amazing.
I think if anything needs to change here in the US to make phones any better it is our service plans, not adding in cameras and iTunes abilities... those are just gimmicks to make you think you have a better service. I think apple could make a better phone but it would be limited to what our US service plans can offer.
bassfingers
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Dear Microsoft, if you want the App Store, then you should have made the App Store
Dear Microsoft, if you want the App Store, then you should have made the App Store
MOFS
Mar 30, 11:35 AM
The thing to remember is that there are two words for "application". Apple use "application" (with the suffix .app) on OS X. Microsoft uses "Programs" (suffix .exe). Application is linked with Apple, so when they call it the "App Store" it is based on their previous use. "Prog Store" would also not be generic.
poppe
Sep 5, 08:54 PM
HecubusPro:
"C2D laptop information has come to a near stop"
Based on all of our POOR experience it is obvious that little real information on the Merom based MBP exists. I do not want to admit to all of the time I have wasted on this decision / upgrade. A new notebook is needed within a week - I can not bring myself to by a Yonah since I've waited this long - but............
Now - the next Tuesday (hahahahahahahahahaha) - 9/12 - then what:mad:
I've heard speculation of fricken october... So much for us all waiting if it doesnt come out next week...
"C2D laptop information has come to a near stop"
Based on all of our POOR experience it is obvious that little real information on the Merom based MBP exists. I do not want to admit to all of the time I have wasted on this decision / upgrade. A new notebook is needed within a week - I can not bring myself to by a Yonah since I've waited this long - but............
Now - the next Tuesday (hahahahahahahahahaha) - 9/12 - then what:mad:
I've heard speculation of fricken october... So much for us all waiting if it doesnt come out next week...
OddyOh
Mar 29, 01:34 PM
That tears it...I'm dropping out of school to become a full-time analyst...easiest job in the world. :D
samiwas
Apr 25, 07:48 AM
This whole story seems to be written to get a rise out of people, because if it's real...wow.
Here's the way I see Dmac: I'm 16, and I'm invincible. I'm awesome and no one will tell me what to do, because I'm the son of some high-falootin' senior partner at some law firm in Michigan. My mom has sued people for damage she herself has admittedly caused and won, because she's a sack of **** just like I am! She will lie to further herself, and so will I. Other people better get out of my way because I'm such a badass.
Notice the original OP, it's basically phrased like this: Someone did something I didn't like, and they shouldn't do that. But when I do it do them, it's OK. No one should ever do anything to me, but I can do it to them all I want.
Yeah, Dmac...you're a loser. The numerous posts in this thread have shown it. You are conceited, arrogant, and have no sense that you are ever wrong...just what YOU think YOU want to do. Your parents have reinforced that thought by probably spoiling you and suing anyone who gets in your way of being awesome.
"I'm 16 and I'm an awesome driver" is BS. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6UCv4etyk) is what I think of when I think of awesome 16-year-old drivers flying down an interstate thinking they own the road. And the driver of this car was a teen.
And as someone said above...yes, this totally defines my stereotype of BMW drivers. Seriously "I shouldn't HAVE to obey the speed limit because I drive a BMW"...ARE YOU SERIOUS??? I live in Atlanta, and if you go under 75 on the interstates here, you will get passed left and right. So I drive 80 normally. So don't act like I don't understand fast driving or that I don't go over the limit. That's not the point here, pal. You're determined and parental-backed-up arrogance in the point.
EDIT: I wrote this reply before reading the last two pages of this thread. I am now convinced that Dmac is a troll. Past posts of "My mommy got a parking ticking and I want to know if my poor mommy will be able to get out of it" while current posts of "My power-attorney mother will sue the pants off of anyone who gets in her way".
Also...
Looking for a new car and can't afford much (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=709933&highlight=rich)..in which he said "And you'd be surprised by what some of the kids at my school drive. Some of them get brand new BMWs and Mercedes for their 16th birthday, it's disgusting. There's a girl that got a fully loaded Mercedes SLK-350 for her birthday last week. It's a $65,000 car. I wanted to vomit, when I found out."
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=985184&highlight=parents...
I can say from first hand experience, driving with a parent isn't much fun. You're just missing out on loads of hypocrisy spewing from your parents' mouths.
Here's the way I see Dmac: I'm 16, and I'm invincible. I'm awesome and no one will tell me what to do, because I'm the son of some high-falootin' senior partner at some law firm in Michigan. My mom has sued people for damage she herself has admittedly caused and won, because she's a sack of **** just like I am! She will lie to further herself, and so will I. Other people better get out of my way because I'm such a badass.
Notice the original OP, it's basically phrased like this: Someone did something I didn't like, and they shouldn't do that. But when I do it do them, it's OK. No one should ever do anything to me, but I can do it to them all I want.
Yeah, Dmac...you're a loser. The numerous posts in this thread have shown it. You are conceited, arrogant, and have no sense that you are ever wrong...just what YOU think YOU want to do. Your parents have reinforced that thought by probably spoiling you and suing anyone who gets in your way of being awesome.
"I'm 16 and I'm an awesome driver" is BS. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-6UCv4etyk) is what I think of when I think of awesome 16-year-old drivers flying down an interstate thinking they own the road. And the driver of this car was a teen.
And as someone said above...yes, this totally defines my stereotype of BMW drivers. Seriously "I shouldn't HAVE to obey the speed limit because I drive a BMW"...ARE YOU SERIOUS??? I live in Atlanta, and if you go under 75 on the interstates here, you will get passed left and right. So I drive 80 normally. So don't act like I don't understand fast driving or that I don't go over the limit. That's not the point here, pal. You're determined and parental-backed-up arrogance in the point.
EDIT: I wrote this reply before reading the last two pages of this thread. I am now convinced that Dmac is a troll. Past posts of "My mommy got a parking ticking and I want to know if my poor mommy will be able to get out of it" while current posts of "My power-attorney mother will sue the pants off of anyone who gets in her way".
Also...
Looking for a new car and can't afford much (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=709933&highlight=rich)..in which he said "And you'd be surprised by what some of the kids at my school drive. Some of them get brand new BMWs and Mercedes for their 16th birthday, it's disgusting. There's a girl that got a fully loaded Mercedes SLK-350 for her birthday last week. It's a $65,000 car. I wanted to vomit, when I found out."
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=985184&highlight=parents...
I can say from first hand experience, driving with a parent isn't much fun. You're just missing out on loads of hypocrisy spewing from your parents' mouths.
suneohair
Sep 14, 06:42 PM
Seriously though. What are the chances of new display? I plan on buying one soon. If I did buy it next week, and they released new ones on the 25th could I return my old one?
Is there a restocking fee? Thanks.
Is there a restocking fee? Thanks.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 5, 05:20 PM
I'm more interested in the 23" iMac Core 2 Duos and new metal iPods, I hope Apple does release them on the 12th of September.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 01:52 AM
nothing wrong? and what if she didnt swerve, hit you in the back, and the collision causes the death of, lets say, 1 or 2 people. but you, mr. safe driver felt obligated to teach her a lesson.
In that case, maybe she should have moved. On second thought, that's a little blunt of me. Sure I would feel bad, but I wouldn't be wracked with guilt over it. I only punish people with my antics, when they do something to sufficiently piss me off. Had she not brakechecked me I would have just passed, and gone on my way. But she deserved what I did, and had it caused her death, well I guess she deserved it in a way; bad karma happens for a reason.
-Don
In that case, maybe she should have moved. On second thought, that's a little blunt of me. Sure I would feel bad, but I wouldn't be wracked with guilt over it. I only punish people with my antics, when they do something to sufficiently piss me off. Had she not brakechecked me I would have just passed, and gone on my way. But she deserved what I did, and had it caused her death, well I guess she deserved it in a way; bad karma happens for a reason.
-Don
MacRy
Apr 25, 05:57 AM
I really hope that you look back on this thread in a few years time and realise what a fool you've been mate. Your attitude is horrendous and your disregard for human life and emotion borders on psychopathic. I'm sure it's just youthful arrogance as I can recall being a bit of a prick when I was sixteen but I don't believe I ever intentionally endangered someone's life to "teach them a lesson".
A word of advice though fella: You keep that kind of behaviour up on the road and someone will "teach you a lesson" because I guarantee you that if you deliberately forced my wife and kid off of the road because you were acting like a dick whilst I was in the car, I'd have dragged you out of your car window by your throat and kicked the living **** out of you!
Here comes the "But you'd never catch me in my super duper fast car and mummy and daddy will sue you because we're all so important and so much better than you all"
Grow up dude. Seriously.
A word of advice though fella: You keep that kind of behaviour up on the road and someone will "teach you a lesson" because I guarantee you that if you deliberately forced my wife and kid off of the road because you were acting like a dick whilst I was in the car, I'd have dragged you out of your car window by your throat and kicked the living **** out of you!
Here comes the "But you'd never catch me in my super duper fast car and mummy and daddy will sue you because we're all so important and so much better than you all"
Grow up dude. Seriously.
kharvel
Apr 29, 03:55 AM
There are two groups of Apple consumers:
Group 1: The people who jumped on the Apple bandwagon in or after Y2K
Group 2: The people who have been loyal Apple consumers prior to Y2K. I belong to this group.
Prior to jumping on the bandwagon, many of the folks in Group 1 and the rest of the world made fun of the folks in Group 2. Group 2 people were often considered crazy cultists with a "sad fetish" for Apple (it took a certain type of individual to recognize the insane greatness of Apple products). Group 2 people were also considered stupid/misguided for sticking with Apple. Many of the people in Group 1 and the rest of the world most likely agreed with Michael Dell when he said Apple should close down.
Fast forward to today. Apple now generates more revenues AND profits than Microsoft. This is an important milestone for the Group 2 folks for the simple reason that Apple has finally won the technology war. It may have lost the PC battle but Apple is now indisputably the technology innovation champion. And it became the champion WITHOUT any benefit of a monopolistic position that Microsoft had over the PC operating system for decades.
When I hear comments from people dismissing the significance of Apple surpassing MSFT in profits, I know that these people belong to either Group 1 or are MSFT fanboys. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that Apple and its cult members had to go through to reach this point.
Congratulations, Apple, for reaching the pinnacle. Thanks for doing what you do best: making insanely great consumer technology.
Group 1: The people who jumped on the Apple bandwagon in or after Y2K
Group 2: The people who have been loyal Apple consumers prior to Y2K. I belong to this group.
Prior to jumping on the bandwagon, many of the folks in Group 1 and the rest of the world made fun of the folks in Group 2. Group 2 people were often considered crazy cultists with a "sad fetish" for Apple (it took a certain type of individual to recognize the insane greatness of Apple products). Group 2 people were also considered stupid/misguided for sticking with Apple. Many of the people in Group 1 and the rest of the world most likely agreed with Michael Dell when he said Apple should close down.
Fast forward to today. Apple now generates more revenues AND profits than Microsoft. This is an important milestone for the Group 2 folks for the simple reason that Apple has finally won the technology war. It may have lost the PC battle but Apple is now indisputably the technology innovation champion. And it became the champion WITHOUT any benefit of a monopolistic position that Microsoft had over the PC operating system for decades.
When I hear comments from people dismissing the significance of Apple surpassing MSFT in profits, I know that these people belong to either Group 1 or are MSFT fanboys. They will never understand the blood, sweat, and tears that Apple and its cult members had to go through to reach this point.
Congratulations, Apple, for reaching the pinnacle. Thanks for doing what you do best: making insanely great consumer technology.
dongmin
Sep 4, 07:56 PM
If you're like me, you don't have your Mac right next to your TV. Not only would I have to string a DVI/HDMI cable aaaall the way across the room, I would also have to get an equally long digital audio cable. Probably end up costing about the same as a video AirPort Express (if they keep the prices the same) but with the added hassle of getting those cables across the room.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...Apple seems to agree with you. They want you to buy lifestyle products that complement your Mac and the iLife apps, as opposed to a sepearte 'Media Center' type hardware.
For me personally, I fantasize about an inexpensive media server that connects to your TV and stereo components and also streams movies, music, photos, etc. to individual computers in your household. It'd basically be a Tivo on steroids. I think this device too can complement the rest of the Mac-iLife world quite nicely.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...Apple seems to agree with you. They want you to buy lifestyle products that complement your Mac and the iLife apps, as opposed to a sepearte 'Media Center' type hardware.
For me personally, I fantasize about an inexpensive media server that connects to your TV and stereo components and also streams movies, music, photos, etc. to individual computers in your household. It'd basically be a Tivo on steroids. I think this device too can complement the rest of the Mac-iLife world quite nicely.
rtdunham
Sep 12, 10:21 PM
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
i felt the same way as i watched a podcast today. then my brother pointed out "itunes lets you set volume level for each item in itunes: select a song/podcast/whatever. right-click on the selected item and choose "options." set the volume adjustment at a higher level. that will keep the volume for that item higher." He says it was one of many useful tips he found in the Visual Guide to iTunes 6.
i felt the same way as i watched a podcast today. then my brother pointed out "itunes lets you set volume level for each item in itunes: select a song/podcast/whatever. right-click on the selected item and choose "options." set the volume adjustment at a higher level. that will keep the volume for that item higher." He says it was one of many useful tips he found in the Visual Guide to iTunes 6.
bossass
Sep 26, 12:00 PM
This is fine. I'm sick of those cripplers at Verizon.
roland.g
Sep 13, 11:48 PM
the iPhone will be cool.
But until then this is the best slider phone.
Nokia 8801
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=57461
But until then this is the best slider phone.
Nokia 8801
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=57461
bpaluzzi
Apr 11, 06:10 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
They already do. Use homesharing and you're all set. Or use Air Foil and get it to work exactly as you describe. Not big on research, eh? ;-)
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
They already do. Use homesharing and you're all set. Or use Air Foil and get it to work exactly as you describe. Not big on research, eh? ;-)
AppleScruff1
Apr 25, 05:57 PM
Hopefully they get rid of the sharp needle points where you open the cover. I know a guy who slashed his wrist open on the sharp point.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
BeSweeet
May 3, 12:10 PM
Meh. Still greatly overpriced for the hardware.
alphaod
Apr 4, 12:37 PM
Good aim.
Point-and-shoot.
Point-and-shoot.