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

At 18 Sep 2007 22:20:32 -0600 Oxford wrote:

> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
>
> wimax is wifi

How is WiMax anything like WiFi? WiFi is unlicensed, low-power, and
localized, and WiMax is wide-area, commercial and licensed- in that
way it's much closer to cellular than it is to Wi-Fi- it's simply a
wireless data service rather than wireless "voice." The fact that 70%
or so of it is being deployed by Sprint should give you a clue...


Perhaps the first two letters are confusing you? Yes- they're both"
wireless"- so is cellular- would you like it better if we called it
"WiVoice"?


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

Yep, you'll feel so much better writing a check to Sprint or
Clearwire each month instead of AT&T, huh? At least after you
replace your iPhone with a future WiMax-compatible one... (That is,
if Jobs doesn't declare WiMax as "too power hungry" and insists that
all future iPhones only have RJ-11 jacks and low-power analog modem
chipsets onboard...)






--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 18 Sep 2007 22:20:32 -0600 Oxford wrote:
>
>> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
>>
>> wimax is wifi
>
> How is WiMax anything like WiFi? WiFi is unlicensed, low-power, and
> localized, and WiMax is wide-area, commercial and licensed- in that
> way it's much closer to cellular than it is to Wi-Fi- it's simply a
> wireless data service rather than wireless "voice." The fact that 70%
> or so of it is being deployed by Sprint should give you a clue...

That may be the problem, he doesn't understand the huge difference
between WiFi and WiMax. Or he does but is just playing dumb. No one
could be as stupid as Oxford's post make him out to be.

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".

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
> >>
> >> wimax is wifi
> >
> > How is WiMax anything like WiFi? WiFi is unlicensed, low-power, and
> > localized, and WiMax is wide-area, commercial and licensed- in that
> > way it's much closer to cellular than it is to Wi-Fi- it's simply a
> > wireless data service rather than wireless "voice." The fact that 70%
> > or so of it is being deployed by Sprint should give you a clue...
>
> That may be the problem, he doesn't understand the huge difference
> between WiFi and WiMax. Or he does but is just playing dumb. No one
> could be as stupid as Oxford's post make him out to be.

I'm mainly playing with people's minds. It's fun to watch them squirm.

WiFi can go up to 3 miles now, so it sounds like you aren't keeping
track of developments.