Verizon Upgrades EV-DO Net
Roy
change?
Roy
-------------
Verizon announced Friday that its whole EV-DO network has been upgraded
to EV-DO Revision A, which the carrier said offers 600K bps to 1.4M bps
downstream and between 500K bps and 800K bps upstream. Its earlier EV-DO
network delivered 400K bps to 700K bps downstream and just 60K bps to
80K bps upstream, Verizon said. Revision A is also designed for less
latency, a type of delay that can hurt time-sensitive applications such
as multimedia.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133625/article.html?tk=nl_dnxnws
Jeff Liebermann
>In case you missed it in all the Iphone hype. Any VZ users notice the
>change?
I don't use the VZW data plan so I can't tell. However, I find it
interesting that Verizon would time it for the iPhone release, as they
declined to be the exclusive distributor about 2 years ago.
<http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/>
Drivel: You might find this applet handy for Verizon. It logs into
the VZW billing site, scrapes the web page for usag info, and displays
it on the bottom of the Firefox web page.
<http://verizon-minutes-used.blogspot.com/>
Mozilla removed it from the Ad-On's web pile, allegedly after pressure
was applied by Verizon.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
just bob
Do they have to be upgraded to realize the new "A" speeds?
"Roy" <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:138ge9k...@corp.supernews.com...
SMS
> Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> hath wroth:
>
>> In case you missed it in all the Iphone hype. Any VZ users notice the
>> change?
>
> I don't use the VZW data plan so I can't tell. However, I find it
> interesting that Verizon would time it for the iPhone release, as they
> declined to be the exclusive distributor about 2 years ago.
> <http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/>
Yeah, just as the reviewers of the iPhone are writing things like: "You
almost ache for a dial-up modem.”
I wonder what the actual reason was for Apple to not include HSDPA. I've
seen a lot of speculation:
1. HSDPA uses too much power
2. The HSDPA network is not yet fully deployed
3. AT&T didn't want to offer lower cost data plans unless the speed was
also lower
4. Apple wanted to save HSDPA for a follow-up product
Jeff Liebermann
I have idea, and no inside info, but it's fun to guess(tm).
The product design philosophy is quite different depending on the
approach. With a conventional cell phone, you design in and
prioritize the radio first, the data modem next, and the
display/keyboard/features/games junk last. However, with a smart
phone, it's more like adding the radio to an existing computah. The
computah gets designed first, the wiz bang goodies that sell the
computah section next, and maybe cram in a radio if there's time or
room. I quick check of the marginal cell/PDA integration of the
typical PDAphone should demonstrate the effect.
My list would include:
1. They couldn't get it to work in time.
2. They ran out of RAM, ROM, or had performance problems.
3. Self-interference from the computer, wi-fi, or BlueGoof sections
caused far too high an HSDPA error rate.
4. Someone forgot to include it in the specs.
5. Marketing didn't think it was going to be a popular feature.
6. Delivery problems required substitution of a less capeable radio
module in order to make the deadline.
7. Couldn't meet FCC Part 15 with HSDPA active, so they just turned
it off.
8. It's for at&t. What did you expect?
Of course, this is all speculation on my part and probably doesn't
resemble reality. If the conspiracy theories are dropped, and Occam's
Razor is applied, my #1 (couldn't get it to work in time) is the most
likely. My guess(tm) is that it's there, but disabled for some
reason.
FCC ID: BCGA1203
<http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=268052&fcc_id='BCGA1203'>
Hmmm... The "radio board" has cellular, BlueGoof, and Wi-Fi integrated
on one board. Impressive.
The FCC test report application was in Mar 2007 with some tests run as
late as April 2007. Verizon dropped the chance at an exclusive
sometime before Jan 2007 with "talks began 2 years ago". The board
shows a copyright of "Apple 2006". That might mean there was probably
a rush last minute design change from CDMA/EVDO to GSM/HSDPA about a
year ago, just prior to the FCC certification.
Hmmm... the report dates are very interesting:
The GSM test report is dated Feb 6, 2007 and granted Mar 9, 2007.
The EGPRS report is dated April 19, 2007 and granted May 3, 2007.
Most of the other documents correspond to the GSM date. Only the
EGPRS report (and a revised manual) are later. That might mean that
the EGPRS feature was a last minute substitution to cover for previous
failures of the HSDPA feature after Apple pounded on it from Feb thru
April. Yeah, I guess they couldn't make it pass parts 22 and 24, so
they substituted EGPRS so they could ship. However, that also implies
that an HSDPA version exists and might eventually ship.
Speculation (with the help of Google) is sooooooooooo much fun.
SMS
> The FCC test report application was in Mar 2007 with some tests run as
> late as April 2007. Verizon dropped the chance at an exclusive
> sometime before Jan 2007 with "talks began 2 years ago". The board
> shows a copyright of "Apple 2006". That might mean there was probably
> a rush last minute design change from CDMA/EVDO to GSM/HSDPA about a
> year ago, just prior to the FCC certification.
Apple was probably in shock when Verizon turned them down. Not sure it
was a wise decision by Verizon. If I were Verizon, I'd have taken it
just to keep Cingular from getting it. An EV-DO iPhone would have been
really nice.
SMS
> Speculation (with the help of Google) is sooooooooooo much fun.
I think that they figured that criticism over short battery life would
be much worse than criticism over slow web browsing. Battery life is
something more concrete, while users have come to expect crappy
performance from the wireless networks. Having the user select between
low speed/long battery life and high speed/short battery life would have
been too complex.
If HSDPA is really in there, in a while Apple can enable it, making it
user selectable, with the caveat that it uses more power and battery
life will be affected. They'll look like heroes.
Jeff Liebermann
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> The FCC test report application was in Mar 2007 with some tests run as
>> late as April 2007. Verizon dropped the chance at an exclusive
>> sometime before Jan 2007 with "talks began 2 years ago". The board
>> shows a copyright of "Apple 2006". That might mean there was probably
>> a rush last minute design change from CDMA/EVDO to GSM/HSDPA about a
>> year ago, just prior to the FCC certification.
>
>Apple was probably in shock when Verizon turned them down.
Apple and Verizon apparently spent two years negotiating the terms of
the dead. See:
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
for some clues. Looks like Apple wanted to control just about
everything related to the phone plus get a percentage of the monthly
contract fees. If true, I can't believe that at&t would agree to
that. My guess(tm) is that development proceeded during the
negotiations and that Verizon only dropped Apple at the very end. That
left Apple with a CDMA/EVDO phone, which they could have sold to
Sprint but apparently didn't.
Speculation has it that at&t has a 5 year exclusive on the iPhone.
>Not sure it
>was a wise decision by Verizon. If I were Verizon, I'd have taken it
>just to keep Cingular from getting it. An EV-DO iPhone would have been
>really nice.
If I were Verizon, I would contract with someone else to make a
suitable clone and thus avoid any entanglements with Apple.
Brad Allen
I'm no fan of Sprint, but their network was better than Verizon's at
the time, so why not Sprint?
Brad Allen
speeds, then yes, otherwise probably no. My Sonic.net supplied DSL
modem has DSL support for whatever that higher speed version is, but
no one I know supplies that yet.
just bob
Thank you for contacting our Verizon Wireless website. We are happy to
assist you with your Rev. A question.
We apologize for any confusion. The embedded modules used in your Dell
laptops do not support Rev. A. It is not possible to add Rev. A support via
a software or firmware update. The only solution that will provide Rev. A
support to your laptops would be to use one of our Rev. A capable cellular
modems instead of Dell's embedded module.
If you have further questions or concerns, please write to us again through
www.VerizonWireless.com. We appreciate your business and thank you for
choosing Verizon Wireless.
Sincerely,
Carlos
Verizon Wireless
Data Technical Support
"Brad Allen" <ul...@I.Q.NET> wrote in message
news:468a9a8c$0$27229$742e...@news.sonic.net...
just bob
> change?
>
You need to replace your cards to get the change.
Brad Allen
when I realized that there may be laws governing the locking of
telephones to certain carriers, and that by California law, we must be
able to switch carriers of the Apple iPhone to any GSM carrier, such
as T-Mobile. So, what are the laws regarding the switch? Would all
it take is a simple legal action (with all due appeals and recoveries
of cost, which in itself might make it worth it) to give us a
competition point away from Deathstar (AT&T) with the Apple phone?
I know there may be competitive models from other companies and/or
clones, but I am not holding my breath considering the anti-consumer
attitude of technical progression from USA polyopolistic phone
companies.
Also, is there a way to test drive an iPhone? I initially said I
would not do it, but if AT&T rescinds their $1,000.00 deposit
requirement (half that at Verizon and a quarter to a tenth of that at
Sprint) and my tax refunds are more than I planned for, I might
consider it. All the competition phones I've seen seem inadequate so
far, but there's a lot of room for competition, with features such as:
* Adequate speaker volume so you can hear the other caller
* Stereo headset for a music oriented device
* A non-time-division multiplexed type of radio that doesn't
intefere with all the equipment around you
* EVDO Rev. A, etc.
* Location ability so you can get accurate driving directions
(and which works well enough you don't get routed to Fresno
for your local 911 calls, although I'm legally not allowed to
call local 911 from my home since it's within 50 feet of a
highway, so I never use 911 any more -- just direct dial to
local emergency #s only)
My roommate has a Sony Walkman phone, and it is AT&T, so whenever we
use the video feature on the phone, its audio gets interrupted
frequently by TDMA GSM sputterings. Lots of sound equipment picks up
its signal. Never had so much trouble with CDMA. His Sony Walkman
phone plugs directly into a home stereo, with supplied jack, and the
stereo is a speaker phone too (microphone on supplied jack); no
trouble hearing other caller when network working -- turn it up loud
enough the whole neighborhood can hear the other caller. Does Apple
iPhone do that? Unfortunately it only has max 4GB memory (which we
quickly filled up and need to delete from constantly).
Both Verizon and AT&T drop a lot of calls. T-Mobile doesn't as much.
Have no idea about Sprint.
SMS
> Apple and Verizon apparently spent two years negotiating the terms of
> the dead. See:
> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
> for some clues. Looks like Apple wanted to control just about
> everything related to the phone plus get a percentage of the monthly
> contract fees. If true, I can't believe that at&t would agree to
> that.
Cingular/AT&T was desperate. They were steadily losing market share to
Verizon, their churn was higher, and their ARPU was lower. Cingular
moved way ahead of Verizon in subscribers after the AT&T Wireless
acquisition, but now Verizon has passed Cingular/AT&T in subscribers
(Cingular/AT&T's network has more users because of the MVNOs that they
lease space on their network to, but Verizon Wireless has more
subscribers than Cingular/AT&T).
Ironically, now that the iPhone is released, a lot of users are seeing
just how bad the AT&T network is, at least in terms of data.
SMS
Their voice network is considerably worse, plus their subscriber base is
smaller. I think Apple wanted to start with the carrier that had the
most retail post-paid subscribers, and that's Verizon. Second is Cingular.
John Navas
wrote in <k4ek831bdf1a658i2...@4ax.com>:
>SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> I don't use the VZW data plan so I can't tell. However, I find it
>>> interesting that Verizon would time it for the iPhone release, as they
>>> declined to be the exclusive distributor about 2 years ago.
>>> <http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/>
"Declined" is self-serving spin by Verizon. Reality is that Verizon
lost the iPhone beauty contest with AT&T, a big blow to Verizon and a
big boost to AT&T, at least in part because:
* GSM/UMTS/HSDPA represents a far bigger worldwide market than CDMA2000.
* Worldwide GSM/UMTS/HSDPA is growing, whereas CDMA2000 is declining.
* AT&T was and is the biggest single market opportunity to Apple.
* AT&T may have given Apple better financial and control terms.
>>Yeah, just as the reviewers of the iPhone are writing things like: "You
>>almost ache for a dial-up modem.”
Either Apple has a poor EGPRS(EDGE) implementation or that's greatly
exaggerated. Given a good implementation (Class 10 or 12, and
sufficient processing horsepower), EGPRS(EDGE) actually performs quite
well.
Yep, an entertaining take, but not reality (in the case of major players
and products at least). These complex products are actually designed in
parallel, working from a marketing requirement and against budgets of
size, power, cost, and available chipsets, usually drawing on reference
designs. The big challenge is hitting all the marks at the same time,
especially because they tend to be tradeoffs (e.g., cost going up and
battery life going down as size is reduced).
>If the conspiracy theories are dropped, and Occam's
>Razor is applied, my #1 (couldn't get it to work in time) is the most
>likely. My guess(tm) is that it's there, but disabled for some
>reason.
I doubt it, given cost and size issues. I think it more likely we'll
see new models when UMTS/HSDPA can be rolled out. Of course only time
will tell.
>FCC ID: BCGA1203
><http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=268052&fcc_id='BCGA1203'>
>Hmmm... The "radio board" has cellular, BlueGoof, and Wi-Fi integrated
>on one board. Impressive.
>
>The FCC test report application was in Mar 2007 with some tests run as
>late as April 2007. Verizon dropped the chance at an exclusive
>sometime before Jan 2007 with "talks began 2 years ago". The board
>shows a copyright of "Apple 2006". That might mean there was probably
>a rush last minute design change from CDMA/EVDO to GSM/HSDPA about a
>year ago, just prior to the FCC certification.
I think that's completely unfounded. Those dates just as neatly fit the
more likely and reasonable AT&T versus Verizon beauty contest scenario
and normal development schedules. What happened to your professed
application of Occam's razor? ;)
>Hmmm... the report dates are very interesting:
>The GSM test report is dated Feb 6, 2007 and granted Mar 9, 2007.
>The EGPRS report is dated April 19, 2007 and granted May 3, 2007.
>Most of the other documents correspond to the GSM date. Only the
>EGPRS report (and a revised manual) are later. That might mean that
>the EGPRS feature was a last minute substitution to cover for previous
>failures of the HSDPA feature after Apple pounded on it from Feb thru
>April. Yeah, I guess they couldn't make it pass parts 22 and 24, so
>they substituted EGPRS so they could ship. However, that also implies
>that an HSDPA version exists and might eventually ship.
>
>Speculation (with the help of Google) is sooooooooooo much fun.
And all too often GIGO (shaky reasoning from shaky premises) that proves
to be way off the mark.
My own take from the available real evidence (including statements by
those in the know at Apple) is that the biggest issues with iPhone
UMTS/HSDPA, just as with CDMA2000, were probably power drain and size.
If you look carefully at GSM/UMTS/HSDPA handsets, you'll see that
they've tended to be significantly larger and heavier than their
non-UMTS/HSDPA counterparts, and require better battery resources to
have comparable battery life. This is a known problem with current
chipsets and with the CDMA air interface in general, and the iPhone has
been under pressure in terms of battery performance.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
John Navas
wrote in <468a4874$0$27162$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> The FCC test report application was in Mar 2007 with some tests run as
>> late as April 2007. Verizon dropped the chance at an exclusive
>> sometime before Jan 2007 with "talks began 2 years ago". The board
>> shows a copyright of "Apple 2006". That might mean there was probably
>> a rush last minute design change from CDMA/EVDO to GSM/HSDPA about a
>> year ago, just prior to the FCC certification.
Spin:
>Apple was probably in shock when Verizon turned them down. Not sure it
>was a wise decision by Verizon. If I were Verizon, I'd have taken it
>just to keep Cingular from getting it. An EV-DO iPhone would have been
>really nice.
Reality:
Verizon was/is in shock from losing the iPhone beauty contest with AT&T,
another huge hit for CDMA2000, and has been scrambling to cover/make up
the defeat ever since.
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<bfcv8350pflrufdme...@4ax.com>:
>>>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>>>> I don't use the VZW data plan so I can't tell. However, I find it
>>>> interesting that Verizon would time it for the iPhone release, as they
>>>> declined to be the exclusive distributor about 2 years ago.
>>>> <http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/>
>
>"Declined" is self-serving spin by Verizon. Reality is that Verizon
>lost the iPhone beauty contest with AT&T, a big blow to Verizon and a
>big boost to AT&T, at least in part because:
>* GSM/UMTS/HSDPA represents a far bigger worldwide market than CDMA2000.
>* Worldwide GSM/UMTS/HSDPA is growing, whereas CDMA2000 is declining.
>* AT&T was and is the biggest single market opportunity to Apple.
>* AT&T may have given Apple better financial and control terms.
Apple's iPhone Moves Abroad
Apple shares jumped 3% Thursday on reports that Telefonica's U.K.
unit O2 was close to signing an exclusive deal to sell iPhones
abroad. The Financial Times, citing people familiar with the
situation, reported that O2 would be the first European telco to
offer the heavily hyped phone.
Investors had been jazzed about the success of iPhone sales in the
U.S. since the device's launch Friday. The exact size of that
success, though, is still being determined. Hopes of an immediate
sellout of 1 million units were dashed, but the milestone appears to
be looming this week.
John Navas
wrote in <62jk83t1m4ofps3ra...@4ax.com>:
>If I were Verizon, I would contract with someone else to make a
>suitable clone and thus avoid any entanglements with Apple.
Verizon isn't that dumb. Apple has the iPhone well-protected with
patents and copyrights, and the legal resources to stop an imitator in
its tracks. Note the huge hit recently suffered by Qualcomm. There's
also the issue of time to market -- Apple will be on its 2nd generation
by the time any 1st generation imitator could be rushed to market.
Lastly, imitators have had little success against Apple over the years,
as most recently evidenced by the continued success of the iPod.
<http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/06/microsoft_red_ring_death_charge/>
The news came as Microsoft also passed its self-imposed deadline for
its latest consumer venture, the Zune music player. Microsoft's lack
of formal announcement suggests it failed in its target of one
million Zunes sold by the end of June - the close of Microsoft's
fiscal year.
<http://techdigest.tv/2007/06/microsoft_zune_3.html>
Microsoft Zune gets a US price cut
Although Microsoft says it's on course to have sold a million Zunes
by the end of this month, demand has been reportedly
less-than-stellar. Which makes you wonder, is it really the price
that's been stopping consumers put their hands in their pockets, or
are there deeper issues with Zune stopping it from being the
iPod-killer Microsoft hoped for?
iPhone vs Zune: 1 million sold?
Microsoft sets up target; Apple hits the bullseye
Apple's iPhone is expected to chalk up 1-million sales this week;
something that stands in stark contrast to the 1-million Zunes that
Microsoft has said it has shipped since its digital music player
launched last November. The problem is shipping something doesn't
necessarily translate into sales- Zunes could be clogging up
stockroom shelves in electronics stores all across the USA for all we
really know.
This looks unlikely - Microsoft said the end of May that it was
confident of exceeding the sales target it set itself in January; a
target that gave Microsoft 7 months to hit the magic million, and one
that Apple has achieved with its iPhone in just 7 days . No official
sales figures have been announced by Apple, Inc.
<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3bfad94e-2990-11dc-a530-000b5df10621,Authorised=false.html>
iPhone sales outstrip supply
Apple and AT&T, the largest US telecoms group, on Tuesday hailed the
success of the iPhone, saying early sales of the new
touch-screen-based smartphone had outstripped supply in most
locations.
The iPhone went on sale late on Friday in Apple’s 164 stores and
AT&T’s 1,800 stores across the US under an exclusive deal between the
two partners.
iPhone sales double Goldman forecast
The frenzy of demand for Apple Inc.’s (AAPL/NASD) new iPhone since it
went on sale in the U.S. last Friday has driven sales, average price
and margin expectations at Goldman Sachs higher.
The smartphone is another example of how Apple can bring dramatic
chance to an industry, analyst David Bailey said in a research note
earlier this week.
He expected iPhone sales during its first weekend would be around
350,000 units, but thinks actual sales may have been double that.
Others said the sales goal at Apple and on Wall Street was 1 million
phones. Nonetheless, Mr. Bailey raised his iPhone forecast to 5.25
million for 2007 and 12 million for 2008, up from 4 million and 10.5
million respectively.
<http://techdigest.tv/2007/06/how_zune_music.html>
The killer app of Microsoft Zune was supposed to be its built-in
Wi-Fi capabilities, which would let you merrily share music with
other Zune owners, without fear of a big fat lawsuit from the music
industry. And since iPod couldn't do it, the feature seemed set to
give Zune a real chance at toppling Apple's market-dominating MP3
player.
Well, it hasn't. ...
<http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/14183/>
Why Apple is beating Microsoft
"The recent joint interview with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates at D5
highlighted for me what makes Apple a great company, and why
Microsoft continues to struggle on all fronts except Windows and
Office," Danny Gorog writes for APC Magazine.
"Both leaders are visionaries, that is for sure. In fact Gates built
the first software company when nobody knew what a software company
was, and subsequently conquered the market. His approach to selling
DOS and then Windows to anybody that would buy it made sense in the
early days. But he was lucky as well. Lucky that Apple didn't pursue
the same 'license the OS' strategy, because if it had there's no
doubt that Apple would have a larger share of the PC market than the
5% it now enjoys," Gorog writes.
"But like Steve said at D5, the era of the PC is largely over. Most
innovation now is happening on what he calls post-PC devices, like
music players and mobile phones. And that is what Apple is focusing
on," Gorog writes. "Microsoft, however, still doesn't get it and I
believe the lack of understanding comes from the top. Gates still
maintains that tablet PCs are going to take over the world, that
Microsoft will eventually dethrone Google to be the new leader in
search, that Zune will eventually rival the iPod for market share and
that Microsoft has already conquered the smart phone market. Somebody
please tell the man he is dreaming."
With all the big hits CDMA2000 has taken, including the loss of the
iPhone to AT&T and GSM, the increasingly frenzied spin doctoring of the
ever shrinking CDMA2000 camp is becoming downright hilarious.
John Navas
wrote in <468ac72f$0$27198$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Apple and Verizon apparently spent two years negotiating the terms of
>> the dead. See:
>> <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>> for some clues. Looks like Apple wanted to control just about
>> everything related to the phone plus get a percentage of the monthly
>> contract fees. If true, I can't believe that at&t would agree to
>> that.
Fantasy:
>Cingular/AT&T was desperate. They were steadily losing market share to
>Verizon, their churn was higher, and their ARPU was lower. Cingular
>moved way ahead of Verizon in subscribers after the AT&T Wireless
>acquisition, but now Verizon has passed Cingular/AT&T in subscribers
>(Cingular/AT&T's network has more users because of the MVNOs that they
>lease space on their network to, but Verizon Wireless has more
>subscribers than Cingular/AT&T).
>
>Ironically, now that the iPhone is released, a lot of users are seeing
>just how bad the AT&T network is, at least in terms of data.
Reality:
With all the big hits CDMA2000 has taken, including the loss of the
iPhone to AT&T and GSM, the increasingly frenzied spin doctoring of the
ever shrinking CDMA2000 camp is becoming downright hilarious.
See my prior post to this thread for numerous supporting citations.
John Navas
<468a99d7$0$27229$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
For the same reason as Verizon: Apple is going after the biggest
possible worldwide market, and that means GSM.
John Navas
wrote in <468a49ec$0$27156$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
Actually pretty silly, and probably won't happen.
John Navas
in <468a9c30$0$27156$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>I got my answer from Verizon:
>
>Thank you for contacting our Verizon Wireless website. We are happy to
>assist you with your Rev. A question.
>We apologize for any confusion. The embedded modules used in your Dell
>laptops do not support Rev. A. It is not possible to add Rev. A support via
>a software or firmware update. The only solution that will provide Rev. A
>support to your laptops would be to use one of our Rev. A capable cellular
>modems instead of Dell's embedded module.
>...
Painful reality that's notably in sharp contrast to spin from the
CDMA2000 camp that upgrades are just software. ;)
John Navas
<468aa7d5$0$14131$742e...@news.sonic.net>:
>I was in the shower thinking about the Apple iPhone Sprint debacle,
>when I realized that there may be laws governing the locking of
>telephones to certain carriers, and that by California law, we must be
>able to switch carriers of the Apple iPhone to any GSM carrier, such
>as T-Mobile. So, what are the laws regarding the switch? Would all
>it take is a simple legal action (with all due appeals and recoveries
>of cost, which in itself might make it worth it) to give us a
>competition point away from Deathstar (AT&T) with the Apple phone?
No law is being broken. You are free to hack (unlock) your iPhone if
you can, but success would be limited, since cool iPhone features (e.g.,
visual voicemail) require special network support that T-Mobile lacks.
>Both Verizon and AT&T drop a lot of calls. T-Mobile doesn't as much.
Makes no sense, since AT&T is a superset of T-Mobile (both its own
network and roaming on the network it sold to T-Mobile) with quite a bit
better network coverage.
Jeff Liebermann
>Verizon isn't that dumb. Apple has the iPhone well-protected with
>patents and copyrights, and the legal resources to stop an imitator in
>its tracks.
Ummm....
Another Apple iPhone Clone - From China
<http://www.intomobile.com/2007/04/18/another-apple-iphone-clone-from-china.html>
Motorola ROKR E6 with iPhone theme (video):
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HofSBCnnJPc>
OpenMoko:
<http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8509737406.html>
HTC Touch:
<http://www.htctouch.com>
<http://pdaphonehome.com/?page=spec&d=touch>
There have also been some announcements by various vendors that they
will "soon" have something similar or better. None of the above are
ready for delivery in the US, but they're close. I'm sure more will
be on the way now that Apple has successfully demonstrated the a PDA
phone can be a status symbol.
Drivel: What I want is a modular PDA phone. Two parts that come
apart. PDA section for all the umm.... PDA applications. Phone part
does the yacking. They snap together somehow and are carried as a
single unit. That will solve my problem of not being able to lookup
an address while talking on the phone, and synchronizing the phone
directory part of the address book between separate PDA and cell phone
sections. That would also make it easier to supply different GSM and
CDMA cell phone versions.
John Navas
wrote in <l2lv83l8rt9j7d38b...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Verizon isn't that dumb. Apple has the iPhone well-protected with
>>patents and copyrights, and the legal resources to stop an imitator in
>>its tracks.
>
>Ummm....
Yaawwwnnnn... :)
>Another Apple iPhone Clone - From China
><http://www.intomobile.com/2007/04/18/another-apple-iphone-clone-from-china.html>
China, ever the trademark-infringing, sub-par quality, knock-off
manufacturing powerhouse, has another iPhone clone - the Hua Long
IP2000. It kinda looks like an iPhone, and it’s even got a
touchscreen, but the dual-band GSM phone is noticeably thicker, has a
crap UI, and is adorned with a huge, gaudy Apple logo on the
backside. ...
>Motorola ROKR E6 with iPhone theme (video):
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HofSBCnnJPc>
Surely you jest. Never actually used a ROKR, am I right? ;)
>OpenMoko:
><http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8509737406.html>
As Apple launches its iPhone today, a company attempting to build a
similar touchscreen-based phone around an open, user-extensible Linux
OS has acknowledged significant delays. ...
>HTC Touch:
><http://www.htctouch.com>
><http://pdaphonehome.com/?page=spec&d=touch>
You might as well post links to the many iPod clones that haven't gone
anywhere. As Al Shugart (legendary disk drive entrepreneur) used to
say, "You can sell 7 of anything." The tricky part is selling serial
number 00008. :)
>There have also been some announcements by various vendors that they
>will "soon" have something similar or better. None of the above are
>ready for delivery in the US, but they're close.
Really? Because of PR claims? I'm reminded of an iPod clone prototype
that turned out to have an iPod under its skin.
>I'm sure more will
>be on the way now that Apple has successfully demonstrated the a PDA
>phone can be a status symbol.
Sure that any will actually make it past US Customs and amount to
anything? Really? How much are you willing to bet? ;)
>Drivel: What I want is a modular PDA phone. Two parts that come
>apart.
Drivel: You're not the market. You're 1 of the 7. And don't hold your
breath. ;)
>... That would also make it easier to supply different GSM and
>CDMA cell phone versions.
It's already "easy" from a technical standpoint. Even if by "CDMA" you
mean imploding CDMA2000, rather than market leading UMTS/HSDPA.
What's really funny about the attempt by CDMA2000 folks to spin the loss
of the iPhone as a business decision, essentially, "We didn't lose out
on the iPhone! What we did was knowingly shoot ourselves in both feet,
our head, and other body parts!"
Steve Fenwick
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Drivel: What I want is a modular PDA phone. Two parts that come
> apart. PDA section for all the umm.... PDA applications. Phone part
> does the yacking. They snap together somehow and are carried as a
> single unit. That will solve my problem of not being able to lookup
> an address while talking on the phone, and synchronizing the phone
> directory part of the address book between separate PDA and cell phone
> sections. That would also make it easier to supply different GSM and
> CDMA cell phone versions.
On the iPhone, Bluetooth can be used to connect to a headset, so
(presumably) one can do PDA-stuff while on a call.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<iii093p87vp3fs14l...@4ax.com>:
>What's really funny about the attempt by CDMA2000 folks to spin the loss
>of the iPhone as a business decision, essentially, "We didn't lose out
>on the iPhone! What we did was knowingly shoot ourselves in both feet,
>our head, and other body parts!"
<http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2028678.ece>
O2 has beaten its rivals to win the exclusive UK rights to offer
Apple’s iPhone. The tie-up, the mobile phone industry’s most
sought-after deal in years, marks a major coup for the 18
million-customer group. The final contract is expected to be signed
imminently.
The phone, which should be on sale in time for Christmas, is expected
to prove a key weapon in enabling O2 to win and retain customers in
one of Europe’s fiercest mobile markets.
It is understood that negotiations are continuing with mobile phone
retailers including Carphone Warehouse over an agreement to sell the
iPhone in their stores after a period of exclusivity with O2.
Shares of O2 ’s owner, Telefónica, of Spain, are expected to surge
today on the back of the news.
The deal will come as a bitter disappointment to Vodafone, which had
been tipped as the front-runner for the deal.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/07/06/cniphone106.xml>
Mobile network O2 may be in pole position for a crucial deal to sell
Apple's iPhone in the UK, but experts have warned there could still
be last-minute changes before a contract is signed.
O2 in lead for iPhone as Carphone dials in People wait in line on a
sidewalk near the Apple store on New York's 5th Avenue
City sources suggest retail giant Carphone Warehouse may yet have a
role to play in the distribution of the much-heralded device,
possibly on a pan-European basis.
As a measure of how much iPhone's arrival means to the mobile
industry, Vodafone shares fell 4 to 162.1p on news that the operator
had lost its place as front-runner.
...
As one City analyst put it: "Everyone is terrified of talking because
before you have a discussion with Apple you have to sign incredibly
arduous non-disclosure agreements, and no one wants to lose the
business.''
The iPhone contract is critical to the mobile industry for several
reasons. Networks are facing slowing growth in mature markets such as
the UK and typically lose a quarter of their customer base to rivals
each year.
That means a company such as O2 has to find more than 4m customers
each year - often at a cost of hundreds of pounds per subscriber in
promotions - just to stand still.
"It takes a long time to make that sort of money back," said an
executive from a rival network. "But an exclusive deal to sell iPhone
offers both the opportunity for a huge growth spurt and gives you an
incredibly loyal customer base."
"Early signs are that Apple's army of devotees are already driving
churn from competitor networks to AT&T," said Ben Wood, research
director at industry watchers CCS Insight.
But of course Verizon knows better. Right. And pigs have wings.
Jeff Liebermann
>Yaawwwnnnn... :)
Switch to caffeinated.
> China, ever the trademark-infringing, sub-par quality, knock-off
> manufacturing powerhouse, has another iPhone clone - the Hua Long
> IP2000. It kinda looks like an iPhone, and it’s even got a
> touchscreen, but the dual-band GSM phone is noticeably thicker, has a
> crap UI, and is adorned with a huge, gaudy Apple logo on the
> backside. ...
I rather liked the way it looked. Anyway, it's too soon for the
attack of the clones. That will come soon enough.
>Surely you jest. Never actually used a ROKR, am I right? ;)
Correct. I've never seen or used a ROKR. Is that a problem? I only
intended it to be a possible candidate as an iPhone clone, not as a
recommendation or review.
>>OpenMoko:
>><http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8509737406.html>
>
> As Apple launches its iPhone today, a company attempting to build a
> similar touchscreen-based phone around an open, user-extensible Linux
> OS has acknowledged significant delays. ...
Actually, it came to a grinding halt before the iPhone was released.
It's possible that some other company will pickup the product. Dunno.
>You might as well post links to the many iPod clones that haven't gone
>anywhere.
That's exactly what I did. I also mentioned that none of them were
ready for sale in the US market. Patience please.
>>There have also been some announcements by various vendors that they
>>will "soon" have something similar or better. None of the above are
>>ready for delivery in the US, but they're close.
>
>Really? Because of PR claims? I'm reminded of an iPod clone prototype
>that turned out to have an iPod under its skin.
iPod has something like 80% of the music player market. The iTunes
tie in was probably responsible for much of that. The competition (MS
Zune) is saddled with DRM infested product, no iTunes, Microsoft's not
so wonderful reputation, and a total muddle on the Zune Music Store
(PlayForSure). I spent some time playing with a Zune and was
impressed with the features and functions, and totally turned off with
the Zune Music Store.
Incidentally, note the variety of licensed Zune-like devices.
<http://www.playsforsure.com>
They won't ever have the marketshare of the iPod, but they might do ok
once they break away from the DRM entanglements.
>Sure that any will actually make it past US Customs and amount to
>anything? Really? How much are you willing to bet? ;)
I never bet on anything less than a sure thing. Whether Apple is able
to convince the congress criters that they deserve protection is
rather problematic. I'm sure customers will stop anyone from
importing a counterfeit iPhone. I'm not so sure they'll stop a
"look-alike". Sorry, no bet.
>>Drivel: What I want is a modular PDA phone. Two parts that come
>>apart.
>
>Drivel: You're not the market. You're 1 of the 7. And don't hold your
>breath. ;)
True. I'm different and I like it that way. I know what's possible,
what can be done with the technology, and what existing products do.
The PDA-phone I currently have (Verizon XV-6700) has all the features,
but is apparently unfinished. It went from HTC, to Audiovox, and then
to Verizon. Development has stopped and the problems remain. So, I'm
looking for essentially the same feature set, but from a company that
actually fixes their bugs. I have another 12 months on my contract,
so the industry has some time to make me happy. Meanwhile, I'll drop
subtle hints for what I want. Who know, there may be other people
that don't like the way the current crop of PDA-phones operate.
>>... That would also make it easier to supply different GSM and
>>CDMA cell phone versions.
>
>It's already "easy" from a technical standpoint. Even if by "CDMA" you
>mean imploding CDMA2000, rather than market leading UMTS/HSDPA.
True for data, but not quite yet for the basic phone protocols. I'm
waiting for SDR (software defined radio) to do the job. I'm not
holding my breath as the cross licensing between IP holders isn't
going to be easy.
>What's really funny about the attempt by CDMA2000 folks to spin the loss
>of the iPhone as a business decision, essentially, "We didn't lose out
>on the iPhone! What we did was knowingly shoot ourselves in both feet,
>our head, and other body parts!"
Did you notice the terms that Apple attempted to impose on Verizon in
order to get the iPhone? Would you have signed such a contract?
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
According to Verizon, Apple CEO Steve Jobs insisted that he
have hard control over iPhone distribution.
The problem? While Apple and Verizon stores would have it,
Wal-Mart, Best Buy and other Verizon distributors could have
been left out. "That would have put our own distribution partners
at a disadvantage" to Apple and Verizon stores, Gerace said.
Customer care was another hitch: If an iPhone went haywire,
Apple wanted sole discretion over whether to replace or repair
the phone. "They would have been stepping in between us and our
customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a
back seat on hardware and service support," Gerace says.
There were also rumors that Apple wanted a percentage of the contract
fees and control over pricing.
I don't know if at&t obtained any different contract terms, but the
amount of control demanded by Apple is rather excessive. However,
since the stock market values carriers by the number of subscribers,
the amount of churn from Verizon to at&t is likely to be substantial
just to get an iPhone. At&t will get more subscribers. We'll soon
see how they do on revenue and profits.
As for Qualcomm shooting themselves in the foot, I don't think that
Verizon consulted Qualcomm in their negotiations with Apple.
Jeff Liebermann
><http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2028678.ece>
July 5, 2007
> O2 has beaten its rivals to win the exclusive UK rights to offer
> Apple’s iPhone.
> (...)
O2 is denying that it's a done deal:
<http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/news/no-truth-to-o2-iphone-rumour?articleid=661416082>
July 5, 2007
Same date, different information. Toss a coin?
Google news search seems to favor that O2 has the contract:
<http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=o2%20iphone%20>
This provides some background and brings up the lack of 3G problem:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/iphone_not_coming_to_uk/>
One good thing. The iPhone hackers are working overtime. Someone
already got shell access:
<http://iphone.corank.com>
John Navas
wrote in <mno093hqsfcuh8e9c...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>><http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2028678.ece>
>July 5, 2007
>
>> O2 has beaten its rivals to win the exclusive UK rights to offer
>> Apple’s iPhone.
>> (...)
>
>O2 is denying that it's a done deal:
><http://www.tech.co.uk/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/news/no-truth-to-o2-iphone-rumour?articleid=661416082>
>July 5, 2007
>Same date, different information. Toss a coin?
>
>Google news search seems to favor that O2 has the contract:
><http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=o2%20iphone%20>
>
>This provides some background and brings up the lack of 3G problem:
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/iphone_not_coming_to_uk/>
I don't think UMTS/HSDPA is as big a deal as the article claims.
>One good thing. The iPhone hackers are working overtime. Someone
>already got shell access:
><http://iphone.corank.com>
A shell prompt, even if true, may well be a long way from any sort of
real "shell access".
John Navas
wrote in <eem093dfcscg9dbgi...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>> China, ever the trademark-infringing, sub-par quality, knock-off
>> manufacturing powerhouse, has another iPhone clone - the Hua Long
>> IP2000. It kinda looks like an iPhone, and it’s even got a
>> touchscreen, but the dual-band GSM phone is noticeably thicker, has a
>> crap UI, and is adorned with a huge, gaudy Apple logo on the
>> backside. ...
>
>I rather liked the way it looked. Anyway, it's too soon for the
>attack of the clones. That will come soon enough.
Probably not very soon, and may well prove to be as irrelevant as iPod
clones.
>>Surely you jest. Never actually used a ROKR, am I right? ;)
>
>Correct. I've never seen or used a ROKR. Is that a problem? I only
>intended it to be a possible candidate as an iPhone clone, not as a
>recommendation or review.
My point is that it's underwhelming, no threat to the iPhone.
>>>... That would also make it easier to supply different GSM and
>>>CDMA cell phone versions.
>>
>>It's already "easy" from a technical standpoint. Even if by "CDMA" you
>>mean imploding CDMA2000, rather than market leading UMTS/HSDPA.
>
>True for data, but not quite yet for the basic phone protocols. I'm
>waiting for SDR (software defined radio) to do the job. I'm not
>holding my breath as the cross licensing between IP holders isn't
>going to be easy.
I don't think that's a real issue -- with available family chipsets, the
difference between GSM/UMTS/HSDPA versions and CDMA2000 versions is less
than 10% of the design effort.
>>What's really funny about the attempt by CDMA2000 folks to spin the loss
>>of the iPhone as a business decision, essentially, "We didn't lose out
>>on the iPhone! What we did was knowingly shoot ourselves in both feet,
>>our head, and other body parts!"
>
>Did you notice the terms that Apple attempted to impose on Verizon in
>order to get the iPhone? Would you have signed such a contract?
><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>
> According to Verizon, ...
I don't think that report is terribly credible.
>There were also rumors that Apple wanted a percentage of the contract
>fees and control over pricing.
Maybe; maybe not. [shrug]
>As for Qualcomm shooting themselves in the foot, I don't think that
>Verizon consulted Qualcomm in their negotiations with Apple.
My point was that Apple has considerable recourse against imitators.
Jeff Liebermann
>>This provides some background and brings up the lack of 3G problem:
>><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/iphone_not_coming_to_uk/>
>I don't think UMTS/HSDPA is as big a deal as the article claims.
EGPRS versus HSDPA. I agree. It's not important to someone who knows
what the acronyms mean and how often they are going to be used.
However, to the GUM (great unwashed masses), the lack of 3G features
implies that there's something inferior about the iPhone.
An anecdote for you (which I know you detest and proves nothing). I
was having dinner at a local restaurant on Thurs eve. The waiter
unfortunately knew I was a computer geek and proudly announced that he
was about to buy an iPhone. I asked why he needed one, and got a
rather vague answer (which I can't recall). So, I proceeded to
explain what I found out about the FCC certification, and my personal
experience with using a PDA-phone. I did my best to dissuade him, but
to no avail. He was ready to dump his existing T-mobile plan, pay
whatever penalty T-mobile wanted, and buy an iPhone. My guess(tm) is
that it's some kind of social thing, or perhaps a status symbol among
his friends, exactly like an iPod.
Anyway, the 3G thing was the only defect that caught his attention. He
didn't have a clue what 3G meant, what it was good for, how he would
use it, or whether he needed a separate data plan for it. On the
basis of his total lack of understanding 3G, he declared that it
wasn't necessary. However, I could see that he was worried and would
surely research it before buying.
It's not easy to extrapolate from this one anecdote to 1 million
iPhones sold this month (including pre-orders), but I suspect a large
number of buyers will have similar thoughts. I'm sure the investors
in 3G infrastructure will also have similar thoughts. Why build 3G
when 1 million users have declared it to un-necessary?
>>One good thing. The iPhone hackers are working overtime. Someone
>>already got shell access:
>><http://iphone.corank.com>
>A shell prompt, even if true, may well be a long way from any sort of
>real "shell access".
Well, it's only a week. You have to give them credit for having gone
that far in so little time. Patience please. A2DP via BT, MMS IM,
ichat, MP3/AAC ring tones, non-approved programs, cool widgets, better
codecs, VoIP via Wi-Fi or BT, etc will surely follow. The current
impediment is that the firmware is thoroughly encrypted.
More conspiracy theories:
"No Skype for Apple iPhone"
<http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/skype/no-skype-for-apple-iphone.asp>
The only apps that Apple is going to allow are those the integrate via
the Safari browser. Based on my experience with a PDAphone, I'm
inclined to agree with the authors speculation that at&t will do
everything they can to prevent users from installing applications that
bypass the at&t revenue stream.
Jeff Liebermann
>>Did you notice the terms that Apple attempted to impose on Verizon in
>>order to get the iPhone? Would you have signed such a contract?
>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>
>> According to Verizon, ...
>
>I don't think that report is terribly credible.
"Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly
cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and
control of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a
Verizon Wireless vice president."
I haven't seen anyone, in the last 6 months since that was posted,
contradict the Verizon wireless VP yet. However, there was nothing in
the Verizon press release archive on the iPhone:
<http://newscenter.verizon.com>
<http://news.vzw.com>
What bugs me is why Apple didn't offer it to Sprint, instead of
redisigning the radio section (possibly in haste) for at&t.
John Navas
wrote in <so6293lmmkcsdnj81...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>>This provides some background and brings up the lack of 3G problem:
>>><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/06/iphone_not_coming_to_uk/>
>
>>I don't think UMTS/HSDPA is as big a deal as the article claims.
>
>EGPRS versus HSDPA. I agree. It's not important to someone who knows
>what the acronyms mean and how often they are going to be used.
>However, to the GUM (great unwashed masses), the lack of 3G features
>implies that there's something inferior about the iPhone.
I disagree. EGPRS(EDGE) actually is 3G, fast enough for the GUM, and
has the same feature set as UMTS/HSDPA. The people that care about the
difference are reviewers looking for something to criticize and a
relatively small number of power users, only some of whom will actually
notice any real difference.
My V3xx has both EGPRS and HSDPA, and while I can notice the difference
between them, that difference is relatively small for most things. Both
are respectably fast. HSDPA is snappier, and better for streaming
video, but that's something I rarely do.
>An anecdote for you (which I know you detest and proves nothing). I
>was having dinner at a local restaurant on Thurs eve. The waiter
>unfortunately knew I was a computer geek and proudly announced that he
>was about to buy an iPhone. I asked why he needed one, and got a
>rather vague answer (which I can't recall). So, I proceeded to
>explain what I found out about the FCC certification, and my personal
>experience with using a PDA-phone. I did my best to dissuade him, but
>to no avail. He was ready to dump his existing T-mobile plan, pay
>whatever penalty T-mobile wanted, and buy an iPhone. My guess(tm) is
>that it's some kind of social thing, or perhaps a status symbol among
>his friends, exactly like an iPod.
I would agree. Apple has successfully established unique cachet in many
ways, but to give the devil his due, Apple products do have clearly
superior vision, design, engineering, and style, like the clever Airport
Express, which makes building a wireless music system driven by iTunes a
snap.
>Anyway, the 3G thing was the only defect that caught his attention. He
>didn't have a clue what 3G meant, what it was good for, how he would
>use it, or whether he needed a separate data plan for it. On the
>basis of his total lack of understanding 3G, he declared that it
>wasn't necessary. However, I could see that he was worried and would
>surely research it before buying.
I've talked to several of the GUM masses about the iPhone, and not one
has commented on "3G". More to the point, almost all of those with "3G"
phones (like mine) have any idea what "3G" is used for, and when shown,
laugh and say, "Cool, but way too complicated for me!" What they want
is a cool phone, not a small Internet device.
>It's not easy to extrapolate from this one anecdote to 1 million
Not to mention not valid. ;)
>iPhones sold this month (including pre-orders), but I suspect a large
>number of buyers will have similar thoughts.
I seriously doubt it. I think it's a tempest in a teapot that will
probably blow itself out rapidly. And there will undoubtedly be a 2nd
generation "3G" iPhone soon enough.
I think the bigger issue with the iPhone is the lack of removable memory
card, which would be nice for moving data; e.g., to get photos printed.
>I'm sure the investors
>in 3G infrastructure will also have similar thoughts. Why build 3G
>when 1 million users have declared it to un-necessary?
Because of business customers, data ARPU, and competitive pressure.
Different market from the iPhone.
>>A shell prompt, even if true, may well be a long way from any sort of
>>real "shell access".
>
>Well, it's only a week. You have to give them credit for having gone
>that far in so little time.
I'm afraid I don't. They had a pretty easy target.
>Patience please. A2DP via BT, MMS IM,
>ichat, MP3/AAC ring tones, non-approved programs, cool widgets, better
>codecs, VoIP via Wi-Fi or BT, etc will surely follow.
I won't be holding my breath. :)
>The current
>impediment is that the firmware is thoroughly encrypted.
My guess(tm) is that Apple has done a very good job of anti-hacking.
>More conspiracy theories:
>"No Skype for Apple iPhone"
><http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/skype/no-skype-for-apple-iphone.asp>
>The only apps that Apple is going to allow are those the integrate via
>the Safari browser. Based on my experience with a PDAphone, I'm
>inclined to agree with the authors speculation that at&t will do
>everything they can to prevent users from installing applications that
>bypass the at&t revenue stream.
I don't think that was even on the radar screen, witness the ability to
run whatever J2ME apps you want on other Cingular handsets.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity." [Hanlon's razor]
John Navas
wrote in <sb92939rea8auqegb...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>>Did you notice the terms that Apple attempted to impose on Verizon in
>>>order to get the iPhone? Would you have signed such a contract?
>>><http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm>
>>>
>>> According to Verizon, ...
>>
>>I don't think that report is terribly credible.
>
>"Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly
>cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and
>control of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a
>Verizon Wireless vice president."
>
>I haven't seen anyone, in the last 6 months since that was posted,
>contradict the Verizon wireless VP yet.
LOL -- no offense, but that's a pretty silly argument -- people aren't
running around contradicting astrology either. ;)
"We didn't lose out on the iPhone! What we did was knowingly shoot
ourselves in both feet, our head, and other body parts!"
>What bugs me is why Apple didn't offer it to Sprint, instead of
>redisigning the radio section (possibly in haste) for at&t.
"Assumes facts not in evidence." I see no basis for believing the
patently silly Verizon spin, and for thinking the radio was redesigned
from CDMA2000 to GSM. I think the available evidence is that Apple was
targeting the worldwide GSM market from the beginning, and for good
reason.
Given the importance of exclusivity, Sprint is an obvious problem
because of CDMA2000, its heterogeneous networks, commitment to WiMAX,
and smaller market share. Thus it tends to run last on cool handsets,
behind even T-Mobile.
All that said, I think there will eventually be a CDMA2000 version of
the iPhone, probably when the 2nd generation is rolled out in about a
year.
Roy
>
> ...
> LOL -- no offense, but that's a pretty silly argument -- people aren't
> running around contradicting astrology either. ;)
That's a silly answer. Unlike astrology, the wisdom of what Verizon did
should be evident in time. Check back in July 2009 with the percentage
gain of stock prices of AT&T and Verizon.
John Navas
<1394u96...@corp.supernews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> LOL -- no offense, but that's a pretty silly argument -- people aren't
>> running around contradicting astrology either. ;)
>> ...
>
>That's a silly answer. Unlike astrology, the wisdom of what Verizon did
>should be evident in time.
Desperate self-serving spin isn't wisdom.
>Check back in July 2009 with the percentage
>gain of stock prices of AT&T and Verizon.
OK.
Bill Turlock
>
> Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> hath wroth:
>
> >In case you missed it in all the Iphone hype. Any VZ users notice the
> >change?
>
> I don't use the VZW data plan so I can't tell. However, I find it
> interesting that Verizon would time it for the iPhone release, as they
> declined to be the exclusive distributor about 2 years ago.
> <http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/>
>
> the VZW billing site, scrapes the web page for usag info, and displays
> it on the bottom of the Firefox web page.
> <http://verizon-minutes-used.blogspot.com/>
> Mozilla removed it from the Ad-On's web pile, allegedly after pressure
> was applied by Verizon.
>
How kewl is that? Thanks!
Bill
Jeff Liebermann
Oh-oh. You've found where I've been hiding.
First, I lied. Verizon-minutes-used is NOT currently on the Firefox
plug-ins downloads page. The author got fed up with talking to
Verizon lawyers and just posted it to his blog page.
I've been using it on several machines and found a few problems. The
default check interval is way too short. I think it was every 30
minutes or something similar. I don't need to know my phone usage
that often. I reset it to check every 240 minutes (4 hours).
I've also had some problems when I had 3 machines all checking at the
same time. Verizonwireless locked my account because it thought
someone was trying to break in.
Other than that, it works well. I can see the numbers increase when
the other users on my account are yacking on their phones. Also,
clicking on the application at the bottom of the browser display, logs
me into my account and brings up the billing summary page.
poldy
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> > Speculation (with the help of Google) is sooooooooooo much fun.
>
> I think that they figured that criticism over short battery life would
> be much worse than criticism over slow web browsing. Battery life is
> something more concrete, while users have come to expect crappy
> performance from the wireless networks. Having the user select between
> low speed/long battery life and high speed/short battery life would have
> been too complex.
>
> If HSDPA is really in there, in a while Apple can enable it, making it
> user selectable, with the caveat that it uses more power and battery
> life will be affected. They'll look like heroes.
If you look at the iPod design history, where people asked for things
like removable batteries, you might be able to deduce the reasons.
It seems they place a high premium on thin form factors, so their claim
that the 3G chipsets available at the time they finalized the design
didn't have the right power consumption characteristics to fit with
their targeted form factor/battery size.
BTW, I'm encountering all kinds of acronyms for 3.5G, 3.75G and 4G
technologies:
LTE, UMB, HSOPA among a few others.
Are there really that many implementations being developed or are many
of them referring to the same things?
You would think there would mainly be something compatible with the
GSM-related tech like HSDPA and some successor to EVDO. Add in WiMax
and that should cover just about everything.
Yet it sounds like there's a lot more stuff going on.
poldy
> Apple was probably in shock when Verizon turned them down. Not sure it
> was a wise decision by Verizon. If I were Verizon, I'd have taken it
> just to keep Cingular from getting it. An EV-DO iPhone would have been
> really nice.
Story I heard was that Verizon was unwilling to allow "sideloading"
which would be to continue with iPod's existing iTunes infrastructure --
downloading to a computer, which obviously is in Apple's interest, then
syncing with the mobile device.
Instead, VZW wanted iPhones to use their V-Cast service.
poldy
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >Not sure it
> >was a wise decision by Verizon. If I were Verizon, I'd have taken it
> >just to keep Cingular from getting it. An EV-DO iPhone would have been
> >really nice.
>
> If I were Verizon, I would contract with someone else to make a
> suitable clone and thus avoid any entanglements with Apple.
Would that really so easy though?
If you read sites like Hofo forums, there are Treo, BlackBerry and WM
zealots who will say the iPhone has already been exceeded by existing
products.
Or that upcoming touch screen phones, on which you can load iPhone UI
skins, will be even better.
But a main part of the iPhone is the UI and that won't be so easily
replicated, especially if Apple does own the patents it claims to have.
poldy
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> I think the bigger issue with the iPhone is the lack of removable memory
> card, which would be nice for moving data; e.g., to get photos printed.
Well Apple probably wants to steer at least Mac owners to iPhoto and
order prints through it, and thus get a cut of each order.
However, there is supposedly a 3rd party product out now which will give
access to the file system.
Also rumors that future software updates from Apple itself which will
enable storage functionality. iPods let you dedicate a certain amount
of space for just storing files.
We know Apple isn't going to offer easy memory expansion. One of the
ways Apple gets sales of new iPods from people who already have iPods is
to offer new SKUs with more storage.
poldy
q...@sonic.net (Brad Allen) wrote:
> Also, is there a way to test drive an iPhone? I initially said I
> would not do it, but if AT&T rescinds their $1,000.00 deposit
> requirement (half that at Verizon and a quarter to a tenth of that at
> Sprint) and my tax refunds are more than I planned for, I might
> consider it. All the competition phones I've seen seem inadequate so
> far, but there's a lot of room for competition, with features such as:
>
I've heard that you can return within a 14-day period but you have to
pay a 10% restocking fee and whatever air time you used.
> * Adequate speaker volume so you can hear the other caller
There are complaints about speaker volume on the iPhone. Some guys on
Howardforums claim they were able to return their iPhones with no
restocking fee after complaining that the volume was a defect.
> * Stereo headset for a music oriented device
> * A non-time-division multiplexed type of radio that doesn't
> intefere with all the equipment around you
> * EVDO Rev. A, etc.
> * Location ability so you can get accurate driving directions
> (and which works well enough you don't get routed to Fresno
> for your local 911 calls, although I'm legally not allowed to
> call local 911 from my home since it's within 50 feet of a
> highway, so I never use 911 any more -- just direct dial to
> local emergency #s only)
>
> My roommate has a Sony Walkman phone, and it is AT&T, so whenever we
> use the video feature on the phone, its audio gets interrupted
> frequently by TDMA GSM sputterings.
One secret is that while Sony MP3 players are struggling badly against
iPods, the Sony Ericsson phones branded as Walkmans are doing pretty
well.
They're suppose to be big hits in Europe and Asia and they've not really
been distributed widely in the US yet. Sony Ericsson just reported 9
million units for the most recent quarter. However, the average selling
price was like 125 euros, so that volume may include a lot of basic
phones, not those branded as Walkmans or Cybershots (phones with 5 Mp
sensors and Zeiss optics like a lot of Sony digital cameras), which
carry premium pricing (around 400 euros or more).
poldy
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> No law is being broken. You are free to hack (unlock) your iPhone if
> you can, but success would be limited, since cool iPhone features (e.g.,
> visual voicemail) require special network support that T-Mobile lacks.
DMCA?
Anyways, there are some claims of unlocking which activate the iPod and
Internet features without activating an AT&T contract.
Also, some people are claiming that if you enter a bogus social security
number for the credit check, it will give AT&T a lousy credit report and
consequently, you'll be offered a prepaid plan rather than a 2-year
post-paid plan.
Roy
There are an interesting twist with Verizon and the Iphone
AT&T wireless is a division (or wholly owned subsidiary) of AT&T. The
same is not true of Verizon Wireless and Verizon. VZW is 55% Verizon
and 45% Vodafone.
According to the Vodaphone website:
Vodafone Group Plc is the world's leading mobile telecommunications
company, with a significant presence in Europe, the Middle East, Africa,
Asia Pacific and the United States through the Company's subsidiary
undertakings, joint ventures, associated undertakings and investments.
Multiple news sources report that Vodafone seems to be one of leading
contenders for the Iphone in Europe. It will be interesting to see how
this plays out. Vodaphone is much larger than the other contender
(T-mobile) so it would be in Apple's best interest to cut the deal.
John Navas
<139kum2...@corp.supernews.com>:
If it happens, it will be a painful irony for Verizon Wireless, which
lost out on the iPhone at least in part because of its dependence on
US-centric CDMA2000. But O2 is now being mentioned as the initial
iPhone carrier in the UK, with other carriers in France and Germany:
"O2 gets iPhone rumours resurface with talk of £178 million investment"
<http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/8738/9762/O2-gets-iPhone-rumours-again.phtml>
The rumours suggesting that O2 will be the operator to get Apple's
iPhone in the UK have made a come-back.
The original reports were denied by O2 and given the "no-comment"
treatment by Apple.
Intelligence from Thomson Financial, citing a Spanish newspaper that
attributes the info to unnamed sources, states that an agreement
between the two firms has been reached.
Apparently, O2 will get the exclusive right to sell the iPhone in the
UK and have committed £178 million overall to do so.
[MORE]
"O2 has won iPhone UK contract: reports"
<http://www.enn.ie/article/66703.html>
"Apple to Partner with O2 in UK, Orange in France, No 3G?"
<http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/04/apple-to-partner-with-o2-for-iphone-uk-orange-in-france/>
"O2 beats rivals in battle for the rights to Apple’s iPhone"
<http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article2028678.ece>
The deal will come as a bitter disappointment to Vodafone,
which had been tipped as the front-runner for the deal.
--
John Navas
<poldy-498DDD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>BTW, I'm encountering all kinds of acronyms for 3.5G, 3.75G and 4G
>technologies:
>
>LTE, UMB, HSOPA among a few others.
>
>Are there really that many implementations being developed or are many
>of them referring to the same things?
Same things. It's just a silly marketing name game.
John Navas
<poldy-2EEE47....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>:
>In article <9mgv835l1etv109jc...@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> No law is being broken. You are free to hack (unlock) your iPhone if
>> you can, but success would be limited, since cool iPhone features (e.g.,
>> visual voicemail) require special network support that T-Mobile lacks.
>
>DMCA?
I personally don't see how it would apply. What am I missing?
Roy
Except for the first item you quote which is simply rumor reporting, all
the others reported O2 had won the contract and they were all WRONG.
John Navas
wrote in <so6293lmmkcsdnj81...@4ax.com>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>>>One good thing. The iPhone hackers are working overtime. Someone
>>>already got shell access:
>>><http://iphone.corank.com>
>
>>A shell prompt, even if true, may well be a long way from any sort of
>>real "shell access".
>
>Well, it's only a week. You have to give them credit for having gone
>that far in so little time. Patience please. ...
"iPhone Stumps Hackers"
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,134598-c,iphone/article.html>
Unlocking the iPhone is proving to be more difficult than some
hackers had expected.
Hackers are working to unlock Apple Inc.'s iPhone, but the job
appears to be more difficult than initially expected.
Hackers had hoped that modifying the iPhone's bootloader -- the
program that runs before the operating system is loaded -- would
unlock the handset. But that turned out to be a dead end, as the
bootloader code must be signed using a 1,024-bit RSA private key
employed by Apple, according to an update released last week by
hackers working together on the #iphone IRC (Internet Relay Chat)
channel.
[MORE]
John Navas
<139n52e...@corp.supernews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>>[SNIP]
>Except for the first item you quote which is simply rumor reporting, all
It's all rumor at this point.
>the others reported O2 had won the contract and they were all WRONG.
Not had won -- will win. The deal is reportedly very close to being
finalized.
John Higdon
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Hackers had hoped that modifying the iPhone's bootloader -- the
> program that runs before the operating system is loaded -- would
> unlock the handset. But that turned out to be a dead end, as the
> bootloader code must be signed using a 1,024-bit RSA private key
> employed by Apple, according to an update released last week by
> hackers working together on the #iphone IRC (Internet Relay Chat)
> channel.
Interesting how we don't actually own anything anymore. We only pay
money to a company who lets us use a device pretty much at their
sufferance, with the item in question remaining under the seller's
complete control. You don't *buy* an iPhone; you just rent it on an
indeterminate basis. The ownership of the device remains firmly with
Apple.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
John Navas
<ske...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote in
<skeptic-0AF859...@news.announcetech.com>:
1. I don't have an iPhone
2. My V3xx blows it away on things that matter to me.
3. I own my V3xx, and have modified it to my own taste.
4. If you don't like the iPhone deal, don't buy it.
John Higdon
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> 1. I don't have an iPhone
> 2. My V3xx blows it away on things that matter to me.
> 3. I own my V3xx, and have modified it to my own taste.
> 4. If you don't like the iPhone deal, don't buy it.
I'm sorry your plug-in response didn't apply to my comment.
John Navas
<ske...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote in
<skeptic-2C84FF...@news.announcetech.com>:
It applied as much as your comment applied to what I posted. ;)
Roy
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:52:45 -0700, Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
> <139n52e...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> [SNIP]
>
>> Except for the first item you quote which is simply rumor reporting, all
>
> It's all rumor at this point.
>
>> the others reported O2 had won the contract and they were all WRONG.
>
> Not had won -- will win. The deal is reportedly very close to being
> finalized.
>
The articles say
"O2 has won iPhone UK contract: reports"
"TimesOnline.co.uk reports that O2 has won rights for exclusive UK
rights to the iPhone."
"O2 has beaten its rivals to win the exclusive UK rights to offer
Apple’s iPhone."
That's "has won" (twice) and "has beaten" and not "will win". Get your
quotes correct. John: I think your bias towards AT&T and against
Verizon is really showing badly.
O2 has not "won" as of right now. Its all guesswork and poor reporting
from what seems to be one single source. Maybe someone trying to pump
their stock price.
Steve Fenwick
John Higdon <ske...@IBOCisaCrock.org> wrote:
I think you own the phone. It may not do much without the associated
voice and data plans, but I don't think Apple will demand it back if you
don't activate it, or cancel later. You can probably sell it to someone
else, possibly recovering your costs. This is contrasted, for example,
with DVRs from DirecTV, which now supplies new units only in a
lease-only model.
Steve
--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Jeff Liebermann
>Interesting how we don't actually own anything anymore.
(...)
Nothing new. Cable modems don't do anything unless the CMTS
authenticates the modem and uses DHCP to fill in the registers. Same
with satellite modems, and DBS satellite TV. These are nothing more
than terminating devices for whatever services they provide. There's
also a growing market for ASP's (applications service provider) where
you essentially rent an online application. Most software licenses
are for use and do not convey any ownership rights. I'm not suprised
that smart phones are now following these examples.
I'm undecided as to whether this is good or evil. It's good because
it places the responsibility for updates and security squarely in the
lap of the service provider. It's bad because it limits what the
alleged owner can do with their phone.
The logic once was that since the cellular service provider subsidizes
much of the initial cost of the phone, they should have some say in
how the phone is used and what features are functional. I contend
that this is baloney because the cost of the subsidy is eventually
paid for by the users. Meanwhile, we have a checkerboard feature list
such as:
<http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_PDAs.pdf>
John Navas
<139om44...@corp.supernews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:52:45 -0700, Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in
>> <139n52e...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> [SNIP]
>>
>>> Except for the first item you quote which is simply rumor reporting, all
>>
>> It's all rumor at this point.
>>
>>> the others reported O2 had won the contract and they were all WRONG.
>>
>> Not had won -- will win. The deal is reportedly very close to being
>> finalized.
>
>The articles say
>
>"O2 has won iPhone UK contract: reports"
>
>"TimesOnline.co.uk reports that O2 has won rights for exclusive UK
>rights to the iPhone."
>
>"O2 has beaten its rivals to win the exclusive UK rights to offer
>Apple’s iPhone."
>
>That's "has won" (twice) and "has beaten" and not "will win". Get your
>quotes correct.
My quotes are all correct. Where we differ is in interpretation.
You're trying to split hairs, rather than read for content.
>John: I think your bias towards AT&T and against
>Verizon is really showing badly.
Now that's funny. Unlike some others here I have no agenda, and the
bias you claim has no bearing on the issue.
>O2 has not "won" as of right now. Its all guesswork and poor reporting
Of course.
>from what seems to be one single source.
Actually multiple sources.
>Maybe someone trying to pump
>their stock price.
Doubtful.
AES
Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> It's bad because it limits what the
> alleged owner can do with their phone.
And because the service provider can provide very bad service -- just
barely adequate enough to keep the customer on board -- and without
effective competition the customer has very little leverage or ability
to pressure the vendor to do better.
John Navas
<siegman-84DB65...@news.stanford.edu>:
>In article <1mno939tk62f8ecfh...@4ax.com>,
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> It's bad because it limits what the
>> alleged owner can do with their phone.
Not really. It's a phone, like a car, not a computer. It can do
specific things, just like a car. It has processors, just like a car,
but that doesn't mean the customer has a reasonable expectation of being
able to program it to do things not intended by the manufacturer. Don't
like the things it can do? Then get something else.
>And because the service provider can provide very bad service -- just
>barely adequate enough to keep the customer on board -- and without
>effective competition the customer has very little leverage or ability
>to pressure the vendor to do better.
Sorry, but I don't think that follows. There is competition, quite
vigorous competition in fact. If service is bad in the first place,
then the phone can be returned and service canceled without penalty.
Likewise if the service degrades significantly and isn't remedied. The
customer has a great deal of leverage because it's very expensive to
win/replace customers, and the customer can leave if service is bad.
John Higdon
> The logic once was that since the cellular service provider subsidizes
> much of the initial cost of the phone, they should have some say in
> how the phone is used and what features are functional. I contend
> that this is baloney because the cost of the subsidy is eventually
> paid for by the users.
Actually, I've given wireless companies' control over the phone a pass
for a different reason: there is an FCC license that covers all
transmissions on those bands, and the wireless provider is the licensee.
An FCC licensee is fully responsible for all transmissions associated
with his license, whether they come from a base station or a mobile. So,
while you one a phone, the license for its operation is owned by your
provider. I understand and accept that.
However, when it comes to the non-transmission aspects of the device,
locking out the owner is the continuation of a trend that annoys me.
This comes up all the time in the PC world, the most notable example
being the continued efforts by Microsoft to persuade chip manufacturers
to lock out "non-approved" operating systems...for security's sake, of
course.
If an "owner" cannot program his own computing device, then he has not
bought something other than a computing device. He has bought an
appliance.
John Navas
wrote in <1mno939tk62f8ecfh...@4ax.com>:
>The logic once was that since the cellular service provider subsidizes
>much of the initial cost of the phone, they should have some say in
>how the phone is used and what features are functional. I contend
>that this is baloney because the cost of the subsidy is eventually
>paid for by the users.
The key word there is "eventually". In the meantime there's no real
issue, especially since most phones can be unlocked on request and/or
flashed with generic firmware.
>Meanwhile, we have a checkerboard feature list
>such as:
><http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_PDAs.pdf>
That's no more relevant that a feature comparison between different
automobiles.
There's no just no real rationale for the customer being entitled to
more than what the carrier is providing. It is what it is. If you
don't like what it is, then don't buy the phone. Simple.
Jeff Liebermann
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:30:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote in <1mno939tk62f8ecfh...@4ax.com>:
>
>>The logic once was that since the cellular service provider subsidizes
>>much of the initial cost of the phone, they should have some say in
>>how the phone is used and what features are functional. I contend
>>that this is baloney because the cost of the subsidy is eventually
>>paid for by the users.
>
>The key word there is "eventually". In the meantime there's no real
>issue, especially since most phones can be unlocked on request and/or
>flashed with generic firmware.
Correct. Vendor locks are suppose to be to prevent subsidized phones
from being used on competative systems before the required contract
period expires. I won't bother to mention what it took for me to get
Sprint to release the magic code to release an obsolete cell phone. It
seems they magically "lost" the list when they decided to no longer
carry the phone.
>>Meanwhile, we have a checkerboard feature list
>>such as:
>><http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_PDAs.pdf>
>
>That's no more relevant that a feature comparison between different
>automobiles.
Are you serious? What it shows is an almost random disabling of
features by Verizon in order to promote expensive vendor based
alternatives. However, I like your automobile analogy. Perhaps you
wouldn't feel the same way if your air conditioner didn't function
because the dealer had an investment in ice cube coolers, the only
radio that worked was a subscription based satellite system, and your
vehicle navigation system craps out every year demanding dealer
exclusive updates? Of course, this would be acceptable because the
dealer gave you a "discount" at the time of purchase.
>There's no just no real rationale for the customer being entitled to
>more than what the carrier is providing. It is what it is. If you
>don't like what it is, then don't buy the phone. Simple.
As you often suggest, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Just one
problem... I can't seem to find a "full service" provider. Try
signing up for Sprint or Verizon with an unlocked phone from another
vendor. Verizon flatly will not provision the phone. I don't know
what Sprint is doing but they really are giving one of my customers a
hassle over using a Verizon Treo 650 on their network. Not a big deal
changing the system ID and then loading new phone setting. However,
when you install the new settings, it turns off some features that
were working previously. Note again that this is not a subsidized
phone, so why should Verizon be disabling BlueGoof profiles for non
cellular functions like using BT to move photos out of the phone? So,
where do I find a carrier that will NOT disable my phone features to
treat the phone as if it were their property instead of mine?
Bill Z.
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:30:12 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote in <1mno939tk62f8ecfh...@4ax.com>:
>
> There's no just no real rationale for the customer being entitled to
> more than what the carrier is providing. It is what it is. If you
> don't like what it is, then don't buy the phone. Simple.
When cell phone companies advertise that they will give you a particular
type of phone, and that is all they tell you, then you have a right to
expect to be given what they told you they were giving you, and that
includes software. It's a simply principle - truth in advertising.
The game-playing is discouraging innovation. There is no reason, for
example, why I should not have the full functionality of the hardware
available to me for applications that that have zero effect on the
providers network. For example, if I want to, I should be able to run
an application that uses bluetooth to control some nearby device.
People won't write such applications if they end up having to play
guessing games about which phones have which features locked up. And
you should not have to pay some carrier to merely load an application
onto a phone that you own when you can do that on your own. The
carriers simply do not deserve to be able to get a revenue stream
from that - they don't design or manufacture the phones or take any
of the risks associated with that.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Bill Z.
>
> Note again that this is not a subsidized phone, so why should
> Verizon be disabling BlueGoof profiles for non cellular functions
> like using BT to move photos out of the phone? So, where do I find
> a carrier that will NOT disable my phone features to treat the phone
> as if it were their property instead of mine?
Cingular/AT&T/Whatever-their-new-name-is doesn't prevent you from
using bluetooth to do that. Don't know about Sprint, but it sounds
like a reason to not use Verizon. At a minimum these carriers
should be required to disclose before a purchase that they are
selling crippled phones, with no marketing hype allowed to try to
spin what they are doing.
Of course, another problem with this profile disabling is that it
makes it very unattractive for software developers to create bluetooth
applications that might require transfering some data between two
adjacent phones (e.g., when you want it to work even when you can't
connect to the cellphone network).
Many if not all of these carriers won't even provide decent user
support for the phones they sell. I know of a case where the keyboard
on a RAZR stopped working although the rest of the hardware was
functional. Cingular's staff at one of their stores would transfer
the SIM card for you plus your address book. But they refused to
transfer the calendar, pictures, ring tones, or anything else (the
calendar is probably the most important). At least Cingular didn't
remove the iMelody application on the RAZR which lets you create your
own ring tones, but it is no doubt because they know that most users
aren't going to use an undocumented application that requires them to
understand Backus Naur form after stumbling upon the specification
during a Google search.
Of course, they probably liked the idea that someone would have
to buy a new set of ringtones when their old phone died. It's
really sleazy. And they all wonder why there is no "customer
loyalty".
Roy
>...
>
>>> Meanwhile, we have a checkerboard feature list
>>> such as:
>>> <http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_PDAs.pdf>
>> That's no more relevant that a feature comparison between different
>> automobiles.
>
> Are you serious? What it shows is an almost random disabling of
> features by Verizon in order to promote expensive vendor based
> alternatives.
You have assumed that all of those features are available on all the
phones which may not be true
Disabling features seems to be common across carriers:
"The BlackBerry 8830 smartphone as released by Verizon has had this
"full" GPS capability disabled at a software level. Verizon has
indicated that they plan to release their own proprietary GPS mapping
solution at a later time; possibly VZ Navigator. AT&T and T-Mobile have
both taken similar routes with their 8800 series handhelds; locking out
GPS access for 3rd party programs and only enabling access to the
built-in receiver to the TeleNav program that they sell
themselves."
http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/2007/07/verizon-gets-me.html
Jeff Liebermann
>You have assumed that all of those features are available on all the
>phones which may not be true
(...)
Oh swell. I currently have a Verizon XV6700 PDA phone. It does most
everything I need, but rather badly. I'm seriously considering going
back to a basic cell phone, with tethered access and a seperate PDA,
for no better reason than to keep Verizon (or other providers) out of
my PDA. In other words, I'm moving away from the iPHone concept and
back to a more modular system.
What would be nice is to have the phone play wireless modem (DUN)
without the tether, using for example BlueGoof. Also, using BT for
synchronizing the address books between the PDA and the cell phone.
However, both those features seem to be on the Verizon disabled list
for most instruments.
<http://support.vzw.com/pdf/BT_Chart_PDAs.pdf>
Brad Allen
poldy <po...@kfu.com> wrote:
" In article <5fj4931d02430hcdg...@4ax.com>,
" John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
"
" > I think the bigger issue with the iPhone is the lack of removable
" > memory card, which would be nice for moving data; e.g., to get
" > photos printed.
Wow, what a dud. Sony Walkman (W810) has this. Our 4GB memory chip
is full; we missed a sale at Fry's for another one for $30, which
would have made a lot of sense.
" Well Apple probably wants to steer at least Mac owners to iPhoto and
" order prints through it, and thus get a cut of each order.
With a memory card "stick", you walk into Walgreens and go to a Kiosk
and print, no muss no fuss. Or, you can order it in the Internet for
no additional charge by uploading from your web browser.
Can iPhone upload pictures via its internal web browser using normal
upload dialogs that most forms have?
" However, there is supposedly a 3rd party product out now which will
" give access to the file system.
What a mess. 3rd party?
" Also rumors that future software updates from Apple itself which
" will enable storage functionality. iPods let you dedicate a certain
" amount of space for just storing files.
What an incapable phone. Rumors about maybe being able to do
something I already do with my roommate's phone all the time, and most
phones allow you to do these days.
" We know Apple isn't going to offer easy memory expansion.
The grand tradition of Apple II and Apple ][+ was that you could
expand it any way you wanted.
" One of the ways Apple gets sales of new iPods from people who
" already have iPods is to offer new SKUs with more storage.
Sort of like modern cars: disposable and outrageously expensive.
A law enforcement officer turned his nose at my 1982 vehicle, but I
think I'm not going to be stuffed into a new car any time soon,
because they just have too many problems.
Someone stole my roommate's very nice CD suitcase within the last few
days. I think it's his brother or his brother's X, but we don't know.
Anyway, it made me think: players should be commodity items found in
everything, for less than a $1 a piece, so that no one wants to steal
them and even if they do there's so many more laying around that it
doesn't matter. And then the songs themselves should have absolutely
no physical or virtual location: they should have no DRM, because
DRM=theft (someone can steal it from you and you no longer have it).
Without DRM, you can make copies everywhere and hopefully off-site
(other people on the Internet everywhere have it), and there is no
such thing as stealing, since all one has to do is COPY the thing
rather than to actually take the only instance of it (in the case of
DRM, the only key). If someone steals your playing device and you had
no local copies, you simply retrieve it for your other playing
device(s).
All this expensive playing device and single point of failure storage
location crap is really a really really really bad idea. The network
is a much better medium for storage and dependence, as long as you
don't have your own army to guard your own house.
Brad Allen
" program that runs before the operating system is loaded -- would
" unlock the handset. But that turned out to be a dead end, as the
" bootloader code must be signed using a 1,024-bit RSA private key
" employed by Apple, according to an update released last week by
" hackers working together on the #iphone IRC (Internet Relay Chat)
" channel.
Prime candidate for key cracking. After all, you own the device so
you are totally supposed to have all access to it, especially its
keys.
Brad Allen
" against iPods, the Sony Ericsson phones branded as Walkmans are
" doing pretty well.
I think you're right.
" They're suppose to be big hits in Europe and Asia and they've not really
" been distributed widely in the US yet.
They're pretty ubiquitous in the slums in San Jose with the crowd that
gets phones for more than just talking: about 1 of 4 people I know
seem to have them now (my boss's boss, my roommate, and my roommate's
friend right off the top of my head, and I see many others with it).
So, Asians and Mexicans aren't having any trouble with the non-US
centric distribution model. (Not surprising: advertising to them
comes via Asia and Mexico, and has different channels almost
entirely.)
Bill Turlock
>
> Roy <aa...@aa4re.ampr.org> hath wroth:
>
> >In case you missed it in all the Iphone hype. Any VZ users notice the
> >change?
>
> I don't use the VZW data plan so I can't tell. However, I find it
> interesting that Verizon would time it for the iPhone release, as they
> declined to be the exclusive distributor about 2 years ago.
> <http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2007/01/29/verizon-passed-up-apple-iphone-deal/>
>
> Drivel: You might find this applet handy for Verizon. It logs into
> the VZW billing site, scrapes the web page for usag info, and displays
> it on the bottom of the Firefox web page.
> <http://verizon-minutes-used.blogspot.com/>
> Mozilla removed it from the Ad-On's web pile, allegedly after pressure
> was applied by Verizon.
>
They (Verizon) just changed the format of those pages, so now it
doesn't work again.
Bill
Jeff Liebermann
Yeah, I know. I don't think the Verizon web pile change was targeting
the minutes-used software. The site changes are too extensive for
that. For example, the web pile now runs at about half speed and
includes "special offers" (also known as advertising) on every page.
My guess is that there's will be a revised plug-in release (after
version 0.990) shortly. The format of the usage report page looks
roughly the same as before, but the login page is radically different,
which is probably what broke the program.
Meanwhile, you can get some Verizon usage info using:
#BAL (# 225) +SEND Prepaid account balance
#MIN (# 646) +SEND Minutes Used
#PMT (# 768) +SEND Last Payment received.
#DATA (# 3282)+SEND KBytes used, not minutes.
Bill Turlock
TY