reply to discussion |
Results 16 to 26 of 26
- 01-07-2008, 04:11 PM #16SMSGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> digi wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2:58 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ness-Net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> There is a fundamental flaw in your premise.
>>>>> The second that a 3G iPhone hits the market, EVERY EDGE iPhone
>>>>> immediately depreciates dramatically.
> <snip>
>> To me, the most glaring problem with the iPhone is that you can't
>> legally use it while driving in three states (NY, NJ, & CT), and
>> starting July 1, 2008 add CA and WA to the list. Many Asian and
>> European countries also don't allow its use while driving.
>>
>>
>
> At least in New Jersey the law applies to ANY hand held phone!
Right, but the iPhone can't be used without holding it to key in the
phone number. You can receive calls while driving, but not make them, at
least not legally in the states that don't allow holding the handset
while driving.
Every other current phone on the market included voice dialing (at least
I could not find a single current model other than the iPhone that
doesn't have it). Entering a number while driving, having to take your
eyes off the road to concentrate on the phone, is very dangerous, and
it's great that more states are beginning to ban it.
I think that Apple will eventually come up with a software upgrade for
voice dialing, or at least include it on the next revision of the iPhone.
> A lot of people seem to have responded by getting a "Bluetooth" device
> to hang in their ear! A little silly looking and probably still not a
> good idea while driving. . . . Not that it's going to stop some people
It's a little better. While conversing while driving is distracting, the
most distracting part of the call is having to dial the number if you
aren't voice name dialing or voice digit dialing.
› See More: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
- 01-07-2008, 10:34 PM #17Richard B. GilbertGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
SMS wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> digi wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 2:58 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ness-Net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a fundamental flaw in your premise.
>>>>>> The second that a 3G iPhone hits the market, EVERY EDGE iPhone
>>>>>> immediately depreciates dramatically.
>>>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> To me, the most glaring problem with the iPhone is that you can't
>>> legally use it while driving in three states (NY, NJ, & CT), and
>>> starting July 1, 2008 add CA and WA to the list. Many Asian and
>>> European countries also don't allow its use while driving.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> At least in New Jersey the law applies to ANY hand held phone!
>
>
> Right, but the iPhone can't be used without holding it to key in the
> phone number. You can receive calls while driving, but not make them, at
> least not legally in the states that don't allow holding the handset
> while driving.
>
> Every other current phone on the market included voice dialing (at least
> I could not find a single current model other than the iPhone that
> doesn't have it). Entering a number while driving, having to take your
> eyes off the road to concentrate on the phone, is very dangerous, and
> it's great that more states are beginning to ban it.
>
> I think that Apple will eventually come up with a software upgrade for
> voice dialing, or at least include it on the next revision of the iPhone.
>
>> A lot of people seem to have responded by getting a "Bluetooth" device
>> to hang in their ear! A little silly looking and probably still not a
>> good idea while driving. . . . Not that it's going to stop some people
>
>
> It's a little better. While conversing while driving is distracting, the
> most distracting part of the call is having to dial the number if you
> aren't voice name dialing or voice digit dialing.
Speach recognition (voice command, voice dialing) is a great idea.
Making it work, work reliably, and making it work for everyone, seems to
be beyond the capabilties of some cell phone manufacturers! My Motorola
RAZR V3m is supposed to accept voice commands and do voice dialing.
Maybe it does for some people but it doesn't work for me. I can say
"check status" twenty or thirty times before the phone finally
recognizes it. In fact, the command "check status", when I say it,
frequently results in my phone starting to dial my next door neighbor!!!
YMMV.
- 01-07-2008, 11:30 PM #18LarryGuest
Re: The WebTV Sellphone Simulator - Try before you buy!
-= Hawk =- <[email protected]> wrote in
news:jap5o3188hljms1odsgqvptfk0nm724c6i@news-server:
> Why? Because you're trying to foist off some moronic catchphrase you
> think is cute and clever but in all honesty makes you look even more
> like an imbecile.
>
>
>
First off, you must understand I don't give a **** if you like it or
not.....
So, your choice is to simply killfile me, putting you out of your misery.
As Billy Connoly puts it, "**** Off!"....(c;
They are SELLphones. If they weren't, they would be hobbled, disabled and
the smartphones would be smartphones, actually running programs....like
your laptop does, without the company bureaucrats' permissions.
The term is very accurate. Ask any Verizon customer.
Larry
--
As the price of Monopoly money rises, at some point it will equal
Federal Reserve Private Bank fake banknotes in value!
- 01-07-2008, 11:45 PM #19Steve SobolGuest
Re: The WebTV Sellphone Simulator - Try before you buy!
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2008-01-08, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, your choice is to simply killfile me, putting you out of your misery.
> As Billy Connoly puts it, "**** Off!"....(c;
One thing you haven't addressed is that you use some of the same services that,
when someone else talks about using them, you make them sound like dumbasses.
You can't have it both ways.
> The term is very accurate. Ask any Verizon customer.
As pointed out to you countless times, Verizon is the worst in this respect
and is not representative of the entire industry.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
- 01-08-2008, 08:28 AM #20cliftoGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Speach recognition (voice command, voice dialing) is a great idea.
> Making it work, work reliably, and making it work for everyone, seems to
> be beyond the capabilties of some cell phone manufacturers! My Motorola
> RAZR V3m is supposed to accept voice commands and do voice dialing.
> Maybe it does for some people but it doesn't work for me. I can say
> "check status" twenty or thirty times before the phone finally
> recognizes it. In fact, the command "check status", when I say it,
> frequently results in my phone starting to dial my next door neighbor!!!
Try speaking in a higher pitch.
--
"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state
itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of
property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who
produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin, founder, ACLU
- 01-08-2008, 08:39 AM #21SMSGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
<snip>
> Speach recognition (voice command, voice dialing) is a great idea.
> Making it work, work reliably, and making it work for everyone, seems to
> be beyond the capabilties of some cell phone manufacturers! My Motorola
> RAZR V3m is supposed to accept voice commands and do voice dialing.
> Maybe it does for some people but it doesn't work for me. I can say
> "check status" twenty or thirty times before the phone finally
> recognizes it. In fact, the command "check status", when I say it,
> frequently results in my phone starting to dial my next door neighbor!!!
Yeah, sometimes the voice recognition works perfectly on my V325i,
sometimes I get so frustrated with it than when it says "Say a Command"
I respond with "you suck." What does work reliably is "digit dial" and
"redial." Sometimes when I say "name dial" it redials. Sometimes when it
recognizes the name and there are multiple phone numbers and it says
"which number?" it doesn't recognize the answer and comes back with "no
match found." The older voice-dialing system which required that you
train the phone with the name and your voice worked much better than the
current Motorola technology.
I think that Apple probably wanted voice-dialing on the iPhone but
either a) couldn't find someone to license the firmware to them, b)
tried to do it themselves but couldn't get it working in time for the
iPhone release, or c) ran into some legal issues with patents on the
technology. I can't imagine that they won't have it in the next revision.
- 01-08-2008, 08:44 AM #22cliftoGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
SMS wrote:
> Yeah, sometimes the voice recognition works perfectly on my V325i,
> sometimes I get so frustrated with it than when it says "Say a Command"
> I respond with "you suck." What does work reliably is "digit dial" and
> "redial." Sometimes when I say "name dial" it redials.
Try just "name".
> Sometimes when it
> recognizes the name and there are multiple phone numbers and it says
> "which number?" it doesn't recognize the answer and comes back with "no
> match found."
I have never gotten that. My V710 is even smart enough to recognize "cell"
to mean "mobile".
> The older voice-dialing system which required that you
> train the phone with the name and your voice worked much better than the
> current Motorola technology.
>
> I think that Apple probably wanted voice-dialing on the iPhone but
> either a) couldn't find someone to license the firmware to them, b)
> tried to do it themselves but couldn't get it working in time for the
> iPhone release, or c) ran into some legal issues with patents on the
> technology. I can't imagine that they won't have it in the next revision.
Or (d) remembers a certain Dilbert cartoon about handwriting recognition
on the Newton that included the words "weave me a cone you cupid bat".
--
"I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state
itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of
property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who
produce wealth. Communism is the goal." -- Roger Baldwin, founder, ACLU
- 01-08-2008, 09:33 AM #23Richard B. GilbertGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
clifto wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>>Speach recognition (voice command, voice dialing) is a great idea.
>>Making it work, work reliably, and making it work for everyone, seems to
>>be beyond the capabilties of some cell phone manufacturers! My Motorola
>>RAZR V3m is supposed to accept voice commands and do voice dialing.
>>Maybe it does for some people but it doesn't work for me. I can say
>>"check status" twenty or thirty times before the phone finally
>>recognizes it. In fact, the command "check status", when I say it,
>>frequently results in my phone starting to dial my next door neighbor!!!
>
>
> Try speaking in a higher pitch.
>
My vocal range is one note short of an octave! I don't have a whole lot
of choice!
- 01-08-2008, 10:54 AM #24SMSGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
clifto wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Yeah, sometimes the voice recognition works perfectly on my V325i,
>> sometimes I get so frustrated with it than when it says "Say a Command"
>> I respond with "you suck." What does work reliably is "digit dial" and
>> "redial." Sometimes when I say "name dial" it redials.
>
> Try just "name".
Yes, that's a good idea. That won't confuse it between name dial and
redial. I tried it and it works.
>> Sometimes when it
>> recognizes the name and there are multiple phone numbers and it says
>> "which number?" it doesn't recognize the answer and comes back with "no
>> match found."
>
> I have never gotten that. My V710 is even smart enough to recognize
"cell"
> to mean "mobile".
That didn't work on the V325i.
Yeah, though current handwriting recognition, such as what Microsoft has
in XP Tablet Edition, is excellent.
Steve
- 01-08-2008, 11:58 AM #25SMSGuest
Re: problem with the iPhone
[email protected] wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> To me, the most glaring problem with the iPhone is that you can't
>> legally use it while driving in three states (NY, NJ, & CT), and
>> starting July 1, 2008 add CA and WA to the list. Many Asian and
>> European countries also don't allow its use while driving.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I would say that the overpriced and underpowered net connection (as
> compared to Sprint) was the most glaring problem with the iPhone. I
> _won_ an iPhone from a local TV station contest this year, and despite
> my long-time devotion to the Palm platform (I've carried a Palm-based
> device for 9 years), I would have kept that iPhone if I could have
> activated it on Sprint under EVDO. Instead, I sold it on eBay.
Certainly anyone that cared about the speed of the web experience would
not buy an iPhone, that's true. I think that many buyers either a) don't
understand what 3G is, b) didn't care because they were mainly using it
as a phone and iPod, c) didn't care because they were going to use it
mainly on WiFi, d) figured that it came from Apple it must be g-d's gift
to the wireless industry and as religious people they had to buy it, e)
didn't realize that they could get high speed data from Verizon or
Sprint, f) didn't want to pay for 3G speeds and were happy with the
lower price point for 2G,...
> As for hands-free usage, I'm not sure what you're talking about: The
> iPhone (like my Treo 700P) has Bluetooth support. Nearly all phones
> support hands-free usage compatible with the new laws -- via BT handsets
> and automotive hands-free systems. How is the iPhone any different?
There is no voice dialing. You can legally answer calls while driving,
but you can't legally make calls while driving (in places that require
hands free).
- 01-08-2008, 02:42 PM #26John NavasGuest
Re: Judge Immediately Bans Sale of Qualcomm W-CDMA Chips
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:23:15 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:
>"U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Monday, the latest in
>a series of legal victories Broadcom scored over Qualcomm last year
>related to rights to technology for cell phones. The three patented
>chips use WCDMA technology, a small but fast-growing part of the
>wireless market used mostly in American T-Mobile and AT&T phones.
>
>Selna ruled that Qualcomm can continue to sell other disputed chips in
>the United States until January 2009, but must pay royalties on those
>chips, which use a different technology called EVDO and are used on
>Verizon and Sprint networks in America. He also allowed Qualcomm to use
>a patented Broadcom walkie-talkie technology until January 2009."
>
>Broadcom and Qualcomm must be very far apart on settling. Reminds me of
>the whole RIM mess last year, but they settled eventually, as everyone
>predicted.
In fact the settlement was far outside of normal settlement territory,
and not what "everyone predicted".
>This whole patent dispute is one reason that W-CDMA didn't make it into
>the iPhone.
That last is even more patent nonsense. W-CDMA chips are readily
available from other sources. The primary real reasons is almost
certainly power consumption of the available chips.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- For Sale/Wanted
- alt.cellular.verizon
Recover scammed cryptocurrency
in Samsung