Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

In article <[email protected]>,
"zara" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Why are you talking to yourself?

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

---

› See More: Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

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

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

"zara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What are you doing here , Dickhead? Go back with the other Hardons in
> your own group.
>

On Sep 18, 5:47 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looks like the slow 3G network died a terrible death today. Jobs said
> it's a "power hog", so basically that's the end of the 3G approach for
> all cellphone companies worldwide going forward.
>
> Just like I thought, WiFi is going to rule the airwaves, not 3G.
>
> That is...
>
[Snip]

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

Oxford wrote:
> Just like I thought, WiFi is going to rule the airwaves, not 3G.

Another lame misinterpretation by an industry outsider with no professional
experience in the communications landscape.

Oxford wrote:
> yes, the cell industry is in a state of "collapse", there is no way they
> can compete against the iPhone AND free / or closed WiFi.

Citations please....

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

Told you so!

Watch it and weep...

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

-

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Looks like the slow 3G network died a terrible death today. Jobs said
> it's a "power hog", so basically that's the end of the 3G approach for
> all cellphone companies worldwide going forward.
>
> Just like I thought, WiFi is going to rule the airwaves, not 3G.
>
> That is...
>
> Unless 3.5G / 4G, gets MUCH better about power consumption or Jobs will
> simply put them ALL out of business. Take your pick!
>
> Cell companies are very inefficient, they've never had the competitive
> envirnoment that the computer industry has known, so Jobs and Co will
> steamroll them unless they get their act together soon.
>
> Companies that don't hold iPhone contracts are basically dead in the
> water at this point, especially now that 3G has been rendered obsolete.
> Cellphone companies are going to have to scramble to catch up with what
> Apple is delivering today. Everything is going EVDO or WiFi, so it was
> good that the US never got stuck with old fashioned 3G like Europe did.
>
> The iPhone gets around 6 hours of talk time, 10-40 hours of normal use.
> 200 hours of standby. 3G would cut that in half. No thanks!
>
> ----

There are multiple possibilities here.

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

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

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

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

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


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

"DTC" <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Oxford wrote:
>> yes, the cell industry is in a state of "collapse", there is no way they can compete against the iPhone AND free / or
>> closed WiFi.
>
> Citations please....

How could he?

It's hard to cite COMPLETE BULL****.

Or ore they just insane delusions.

"Reality" <[email protected]> wrote:

> NEVER be ubiquitous (like you contend) is WiFi. Now, wimax
> may be something to watch, but wifi certainly will NEVER be a
> replacement for cellular.

ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.

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

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Reality" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> NEVER be ubiquitous (like you contend) is WiFi. Now, wimax
>> may be something to watch, but wifi certainly will NEVER be a
>> replacement for cellular.
>
> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
>
> wimax is wifi, the cell network is dead, just as i've been saying.

Again demonstrating his complete and TOTAL ignorance....

WiFi operates on 2 UNLICENSED frequencies. Same as many other devices.
Like cordless phones, baby monitors, etc, etc.... It is NOT an ideal RF situation.

WiMax's implementation in the US will be using LICENSED frequencies.
(Just like good old cellular Oxford.)

The two are very definitly NOT the same. And, Sprint-Nextel will be building
wimax out as an overlay to existing CELLULAR infastructure. Clearwire also
colocates on existing cellular infastructure the majority of the time.

Comparing Wimax with Wi-Fi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WiFi simply isn't and it NEVER WILL BE.

YOU are an idiot Oxford.

Reality <[email protected]> wrote:

> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER CHANGEABLE
> battery, Apple has it's ASS hanging waaaay out on a limb.

I really can't understand why Apple didn't make the battery user
changeable. The trick is to incorporate the battery compartment into the
cosmetic design, not dismiss it as irrelevent.

> This "3G bad" **** is nothing more than double speak. Apple ****ed up and
> now CAN'T support a better technology, because of battery life and
> potential pissed off customers.

And it certainly is a better technology.

This will come back to bite Apple in a few months because the
competition won't stand idle. The iPhone US launch put the 3G community
on notice, and power efficient chipsets are probably being fabbed at
this moment.

> Your infallible Apple - ISN'T. A BIG **** up has been made
> and this is simply spin control, nothing more.

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

and watch the video.

Tip:- wait for the G3 iPhone...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

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

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/0,39...9292859,00.htm

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

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

In article <tR0Ii.4642$6o2.3735@trnddc05>,
"Reality" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER
> CHANGEABLE battery, Apple has it's ASS hanging waaaay out on a limb.

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

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

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006

On 2007-09-19, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> John C. Randolph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Looks like the slow 3G network died a terrible death today. Jobs said
>> > it's a "power hog", so basically that's the end of the 3G approach for
>> > all cellphone companies worldwide going forward.
>>
>> No, he said that *today's* 3G chipsets are power hogs, which they are.
>> Check again in six months. The first generation of 802.11 chips drew
>> a lot more power than today's equivalents do.
>
> Yes, and if the 3G group can rise to meet Steve's challenge they have a
> chance, but if not, they will be superseded. There is no reason a faster
> protocol needs to be power hungry, it's poor chip design that's all.

Actually there's a reason higher data rates require higher power; google
"Shannon capacity". You can use low power WiFi if you don't need to talk
to access points that are further away than across the room, but at the
distances 3G operates over WiFi would require significantly more power.

Dennis Ferguson

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-09-19, ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not a very customer-friendly policy.

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