aristobrat
Sep 5, 11:38 AM
Hopefully it's not the Extreme that gets the update because my cable modem is nowhere near my TV. ;)
ucfgrad93
Apr 25, 02:16 AM
I never said my actions were morally right. I'll admit that my actions are probably very immoral, and ethically wrong. The simple fact is I don't care about how people view my morality or ethics. Why should I care what people think of me. I never said it bothers me that you guys are not agreeing with me, all I said is that I find it laughable.
-Don
This is the same attitude that people like Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, etc had as they totally scammed thousands of people out of billions of dollars.
-Don
This is the same attitude that people like Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, etc had as they totally scammed thousands of people out of billions of dollars.
MacVault
Sep 19, 03:57 PM
This is great news, however, I still have a hard time talking myself into paying $10 to $15 for a DRM-"infected" movie file.
1) I cannot sell it or give it away as a gift.
2) I can't share it with a friend.
3) Video quality is not that great.
4) It has no special bonus features as does a DVD.
5) etc.
I think there needs to be a big price drop AND/OR some type of subscription model for this movie download stuff. Why pay that much $$ for something I'll watch only once or twice???!!!
1) I cannot sell it or give it away as a gift.
2) I can't share it with a friend.
3) Video quality is not that great.
4) It has no special bonus features as does a DVD.
5) etc.
I think there needs to be a big price drop AND/OR some type of subscription model for this movie download stuff. Why pay that much $$ for something I'll watch only once or twice???!!!
jakerichva
Apr 20, 01:59 PM
I don't usually read SLA's, but it's all right there, Page 1, Section 4, subsection b. And if don't want your iPhone to collect this data, turn off the feature.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone4.pdf
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdfAs you said, we've all agreed to it. Here is the appropriate paragraph for the iPad, for those who didn't bother to check the links
Section 4.b
(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services,
where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of
your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to
provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent
at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning o! the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non locationbased functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such
third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone4.pdf
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdfAs you said, we've all agreed to it. Here is the appropriate paragraph for the iPad, for those who didn't bother to check the links
Section 4.b
(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services,
where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of
your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to
provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent
at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning o! the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non locationbased functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such
third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.
theelysium
May 3, 04:01 PM
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
Is that what they were doing? Well it wasn't clear. They need to fix that it's too confusing. It appears they are saying the current i5 is faster then the current i7.:rolleyes:
Is that what they were doing? Well it wasn't clear. They need to fix that it's too confusing. It appears they are saying the current i5 is faster then the current i7.:rolleyes:
Marx55
Sep 14, 02:29 AM
How to make it a best seller:
Being a true smart phone, capable of booting Mac OS X mobile (to be released) and thus being used as a wireless computerless remote for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations made on Mac or Windows.
Will sell millions on corporate, education and domestic markets.
With a huge halo effect!!!
Being a true smart phone, capable of booting Mac OS X mobile (to be released) and thus being used as a wireless computerless remote for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations made on Mac or Windows.
Will sell millions on corporate, education and domestic markets.
With a huge halo effect!!!
BoyBach
Aug 23, 05:52 PM
This settlement may well be the final 'installment' in the Creative Story, who have been losing money like it's going out of fashion. Since they cannot sue Apple again over the menu system, they need to start making money the 'old-fashioned way' by selling products. But of course, in the near future Creative's major rival will not be the iPod, but Microsoft's Zune and Sandisk players...
Then again, disregard all of the above since they'll probably try suing Microsoft instead, to keep afloat for another year!
Then again, disregard all of the above since they'll probably try suing Microsoft instead, to keep afloat for another year!
kevin2i
Apr 30, 04:16 PM
USB3 is dead tech. You'll never see it on a Mac. Would be VERY surprised to see eSATA, as well.
eSata works great, just plug into a SATA port on the motherboard, and insert the external connector in a vacant PC-card slot. (6 Sata ports on the MB) ... of course only works if you have a Mac Pro. iMacs sure are pretty, but gotta have options (like 4 HD's plus SSD in the case).
Yup. Not sure why people are surprised that the machine with Thunderbolt came out before the drives/peripherals. Do you really think it would happen the other way around?
Compare:
"Here's a computer with a port that you can't use yet, but will be able to soon as peripherals are built. You can still use the rest of the computer, though"
to
"Here's a peripheral with a port that isn't supported by any computers yet. There should be something out soon, though"
Not really a tough decision, eh?
Haha, exactly. And the port is still a working display port right now.
eSata works great, just plug into a SATA port on the motherboard, and insert the external connector in a vacant PC-card slot. (6 Sata ports on the MB) ... of course only works if you have a Mac Pro. iMacs sure are pretty, but gotta have options (like 4 HD's plus SSD in the case).
Yup. Not sure why people are surprised that the machine with Thunderbolt came out before the drives/peripherals. Do you really think it would happen the other way around?
Compare:
"Here's a computer with a port that you can't use yet, but will be able to soon as peripherals are built. You can still use the rest of the computer, though"
to
"Here's a peripheral with a port that isn't supported by any computers yet. There should be something out soon, though"
Not really a tough decision, eh?
Haha, exactly. And the port is still a working display port right now.
poppe
Sep 4, 08:49 PM
Who wants to be that Steve, when he gets his live press release that is streaming to London or where ever it was, will be using this new technology to show how wonderful it works.
boxandrew
Sep 4, 10:11 PM
Have I missed something?
As far as I can tell, we haven't actually seen an invite to this media event, so how do we know it's actually going to happen? If Apple are having trouble with some of the proposed releases, what's to prevent them delaying till later in the month or even early October?
As far as I can tell, we haven't actually seen an invite to this media event, so how do we know it's actually going to happen? If Apple are having trouble with some of the proposed releases, what's to prevent them delaying till later in the month or even early October?
syklee26
Sep 12, 03:48 PM
sorry about digressing but what da heck happened to education pricing for iPods?
Multimedia
Sep 13, 10:18 AM
so, how does one go about getting the 1.2 update? It does not appear in my version of iTunes7Install Quicktime 7.1.3 (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/mac.html) then install iTunes 7 (http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/). Connect your 3-5G iPod. Updater will appear in the new iTunes when you highligh the iPod in the left column. Eazy Peezy. :)
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
Porchland
Sep 19, 05:07 PM
Looking at some financials, I think Disney sells on the order of 100M DVD units per quarter, which comes out to about 7-10M units per week? 125k units through the online channel in one week isn't so bad. :) If they hit their $50M revenue target, that means they will see sales on the order of 1% of total home video sales? That's a fair start.
And undoubtedly a better margin. I have not seen any concrete numbers, but I had read an article months ago speculating that a studio's margin on digitally distributed movies would be about twice the margin it receives on DVDs.
Plus, for catalog sales, the is almost NO marginal cost; the films just sit on a server until someone buys them.
And undoubtedly a better margin. I have not seen any concrete numbers, but I had read an article months ago speculating that a studio's margin on digitally distributed movies would be about twice the margin it receives on DVDs.
Plus, for catalog sales, the is almost NO marginal cost; the films just sit on a server until someone buys them.
DRewPi
Sep 2, 03:52 PM
MacBook for 999$ with some up features would be the deal for me !!!!!
Otherwise just throw in some of that C2D chips and let it rock !!!! :D
Otherwise just throw in some of that C2D chips and let it rock !!!! :D
Multimedia
Sep 11, 12:20 PM
Ah, but note Fig 3, especially item labelled 38.
I can tell you right now that today's cube does not have any type of fan.
Multitasking right now, and my Cube is COMPLETELY inaudiable. No fan.
If the patent includes a fan, as this one clearly does, it could well be new.While our Cubes have no fans, they do have a fan mounting location on the inside of the bottom of the system. Apple originally planned on installing a fan there but figured out how they didn't have to. Cube upgraders to dual G4 processors put a fan there. I know this because I was planning on doing a dual G4 processor upgrade to one - own two. In fact, I bought the second one specifically for that purpose. But which model to upgrade with I never made up my mind. Here's the Barefeats page on the subject (http://www.barefeats.com/cubeup.html).
But then I made the leap to the D 2 G5 and never looked back.
I can tell you right now that today's cube does not have any type of fan.
Multitasking right now, and my Cube is COMPLETELY inaudiable. No fan.
If the patent includes a fan, as this one clearly does, it could well be new.While our Cubes have no fans, they do have a fan mounting location on the inside of the bottom of the system. Apple originally planned on installing a fan there but figured out how they didn't have to. Cube upgraders to dual G4 processors put a fan there. I know this because I was planning on doing a dual G4 processor upgrade to one - own two. In fact, I bought the second one specifically for that purpose. But which model to upgrade with I never made up my mind. Here's the Barefeats page on the subject (http://www.barefeats.com/cubeup.html).
But then I made the leap to the D 2 G5 and never looked back.
powerbuddy
Sep 5, 01:52 PM
9.99? you can rent movies from Mlink or Cinemanow for 4.99 or DVR's from 3.99. Just stupid if we dont keep to buy and keep the movie for that price.
KnightWRX
Apr 30, 04:01 PM
Thunderbolt promises a faster connector technology to drive external displays
Right now, Thunderbolt does not deliver faster connector technology to drive external displays. Displayport 1,1a has a bit more bandwidth, Displayport 1,2 has more than twice the bandwidth.
ThunderBolt to USB 3.0 adapters do exist
Link ?
That display isn't happening this time.
You're saying they aren't going to ship the 27" iMac with its current IPS screen with a resolution of 2560x1440 ? Proof ?
Right now, Thunderbolt does not deliver faster connector technology to drive external displays. Displayport 1,1a has a bit more bandwidth, Displayport 1,2 has more than twice the bandwidth.
ThunderBolt to USB 3.0 adapters do exist
Link ?
That display isn't happening this time.
You're saying they aren't going to ship the 27" iMac with its current IPS screen with a resolution of 2560x1440 ? Proof ?
Cjm1
Apr 25, 06:08 PM
Yes. Time for a new change in the design. I am a small majority who really hate the current design due to high prices in repairs. Carbon fiber would be a good addition instead of the aluminium :apple:
Dave00
Mar 29, 12:58 PM
It's utter silliness to try to predict market share for four years from now. Especially laughable that they try to predict it to the tenth of a percentage point. Four years way more than enough time for a new player to come in and dominate the field, not to mention time for a new kind of phone/device to appear.
Dave
Dave
rychencop
Jan 1, 06:08 PM
i think it's pretty common knowledge that Apple devices will be targeted more by virus making idiots in the future as they become more popular. i also think a company like McAfee has an interests in creating a panic so they can sell more software.
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 12:51 PM
If you read my post more carefully you'll understand I was referring to the people who play games on the 11". As far as I'm concerned, working on a laptop with an external monitor plugged in is an exception (rare) and not something common.
As far as you're concerned maybe, but as far as what's common or not, you're out of it. There's a reason every laptop out there has some kind of external display connector.
But silly me, I must be a moron for using the mini display port right ? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you mean it is capable of everything you need it to do. I used to have a laptop as a single computer at my home. It resembled a Christmas tree pretty much - it had an USB optical mouse, a printer, external speakers, a Yamaha keyboard, card reader and power cord plugged in. I was always plugging and unplugging cables whenever I wanted to move it to another place. Thank goodness I did not come to the idea to attach an external monitor to it.
You're doing it wrong. I plug in 4 cables. Power, Monitor, Speakers, USB. My keyboard/mouse/tablet/Printer/iPhone/iPod all get recognized instantly. That's what the USB hub on my desk is for. 1 cable, all devices.
If Apple had docks, it would be even better. Just drop the laptop in place and voila. But I guess docks just aren't esthetic enough.
There is nothing uncommon about it, so again, thank you for calling me stupid because I dare use a MBA as my only computer and I dare launch games on it, while connected to an external monitor of all things!
Keep your insults for yourself next time.
I was under the understanding that the reason that the current 320M has been so impressive considering the aging Duel Core CPU was the increased speed of data transfer from the SSD meaning a large increase in efficiency in both the CPU and the GPU.
Hum, no. The SSD is still a bottleneck compared to the bus speeds between the CPU and GPU. The 320M is impressive because the Intel GPU is so sub-par. Even a full power Sandy Bridge Intell 3000 HD barely compares to it, and then, only in benchmarks where the CPU is the bottleneck and the C2D is holding back the 320M. In pure GPU bottlenecked benchmarks, the 320M trumps the Intel 3000HD.
That's just the story with Intel. They always sucked at GPUs.
As far as you're concerned maybe, but as far as what's common or not, you're out of it. There's a reason every laptop out there has some kind of external display connector.
But silly me, I must be a moron for using the mini display port right ? :rolleyes:
Perhaps you mean it is capable of everything you need it to do. I used to have a laptop as a single computer at my home. It resembled a Christmas tree pretty much - it had an USB optical mouse, a printer, external speakers, a Yamaha keyboard, card reader and power cord plugged in. I was always plugging and unplugging cables whenever I wanted to move it to another place. Thank goodness I did not come to the idea to attach an external monitor to it.
You're doing it wrong. I plug in 4 cables. Power, Monitor, Speakers, USB. My keyboard/mouse/tablet/Printer/iPhone/iPod all get recognized instantly. That's what the USB hub on my desk is for. 1 cable, all devices.
If Apple had docks, it would be even better. Just drop the laptop in place and voila. But I guess docks just aren't esthetic enough.
There is nothing uncommon about it, so again, thank you for calling me stupid because I dare use a MBA as my only computer and I dare launch games on it, while connected to an external monitor of all things!
Keep your insults for yourself next time.
I was under the understanding that the reason that the current 320M has been so impressive considering the aging Duel Core CPU was the increased speed of data transfer from the SSD meaning a large increase in efficiency in both the CPU and the GPU.
Hum, no. The SSD is still a bottleneck compared to the bus speeds between the CPU and GPU. The 320M is impressive because the Intel GPU is so sub-par. Even a full power Sandy Bridge Intell 3000 HD barely compares to it, and then, only in benchmarks where the CPU is the bottleneck and the C2D is holding back the 320M. In pure GPU bottlenecked benchmarks, the 320M trumps the Intel 3000HD.
That's just the story with Intel. They always sucked at GPUs.
jellomizer
Sep 14, 05:48 AM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
I think it would be kinda cool in a retro way. Just put the numbers on the click wheel. while most people just select the person on the list. which the iPod are really good at.
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.
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 04:18 PM
I believe such behavior is sign of impending mental collapse...
I wouldn't do it, but it might make some one happy. You never know.
I wouldn't do it, but it might make some one happy. You never know.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق