Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

At 19 Sep 2007 11:10:30 -0600 Oxford wrote:

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


Yes, various tricks will greatly increase the range of WiFi.
Unfortunately while extending the range of fixed APs is not very
difficult, getting portable devices, like your iPhone, to reach back
to them is not as trivial...



--

"Stop *****ing that Apple cut the price of the iPhone...
Its not a price cut, its a repeal on the Nerd Tax. If you
didn't have to be the first on your block to have the
latest gizmo, you'd now have an extra $200 to spend on
your imaginary girlfriend..."

-Bill Maher 9/14/2007

---

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

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 chance, but if not, they will be superseded.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

Dennis Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

ah, so the flaw is related to obsolete cell towers, not the more modern
approach of using higher density, but open 802.11 protocols. good to
know.

"Rashputin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Isn't he the same guy who took over the desktop PC market back in the
> eighties?

not sure what you mean, Steve left Apple long before he had a chance to
"take over the pc market", plus IBM was quite powerful at the time. No
Cell Company is as powerful as IBM was in the 60's 70's, so this will be
easy.

Apple now owns the entire high end of the PC market, it will do the same
with Cell Phones, you can bank on it.

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

but 90% of the time you'll be on regular WiFi, so speed is FASTER than
3G... being on "2G" is only in desperate times, away from home or office
or restaurants, etc.

Your phone calls don't make any difference, neither do email, google
maps, etc. You'd only notice 3G speed difference if you surf a lot out
in remote areas... where ironically 3G won't be for years, if ever.

How do you figure I'll be on Wi-Fi ?
If Wi-Fi were everywhere like you think it is, then why even have any other
connection in the phone ? Just use Wi-Fi right ?

Wrong, Drive down some hi-way and see how much Wi-Fi you get.

Point is, He is making excuses for not adding it. And that's going to be a
downfall.

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> but 90% of the time you'll be on regular WiFi, so speed is FASTER than
> 3G... being on "2G" is only in desperate times, away from home or office
> or restaurants, etc.
>
> Your phone calls don't make any difference, neither do email, google
> maps, etc. You'd only notice 3G speed difference if you surf a lot out
> in remote areas... where ironically 3G won't be for years, if ever.

At 19 Sep 2007 14:58:32 -0400 ZnU wrote:

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

Agreed- under normal circumstances. However, as a user of a PPC
phone with a godawful battery life, I DO pack a spare on vacations,
business trips or anytime I know I'll be away from convenient power
(i.e. camping.) I even have a double-capacity battery that comes
with it's own battery cover (with a hideous "camel hump" to hold the
oversized battery!) that I switch to on such occasions.

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

One could also ask "why do Apple supporters make ridiculous
justifications for any design flaw or omission, and try to paint them
as advantages?"

Can't we just say "nice phone- too bad about the stupid non-
replaceable battery, though..." Why does disagreeing about ANY
aspect of an Apple design automatically place one in the "Apple
detractor" camp?

But, to answer your question as asked, perhaps it's because it
illustrates a certain "we know better than everyone else" hubris
that Apple sometimes seems to demonstrate- despite the fact that
every other cellphone has a removable battery (for a variety of
reasons)
Apple "knows best" and made one that doesn't. Likewise with SJ's
recent "3G eats too much power" nonsense. Other manufacturers might
simply let power-conscious users TURN IT OFF, (like WiFi) rather than
omit a useful feature "for our own good."

While I understand the reasons for not making it replaceable, I
suspect most "real users" would happily trade a 10-20% reduction in
battery capacity for the ability to swap it out with a fully charged
one and eliminate any downtime. The more devices a handheld can
replace, or more functions it performs, the more we "real users" rely
on it to be working, not sitting in the charge/sync cradle!


--

"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

"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you figure I'll be on Wi-Fi ?
> If Wi-Fi were everywhere like you think it is, then why even have any
> other connection in the phone ? Just use Wi-Fi right ?
>
> Wrong, Drive down some hi-way and see how much Wi-Fi you get.


The thought of some brain-damaged idiot driving the freeway while trying to
use 3G on his phone is frightening.
I hope legislation is passed in each and every state to protect the innocent
from ignorant dweebs downloading
or surfing the net instead of paying attention to traffic.

Anyone caught surfing the web, downloading, etc while driveling should have
a minimum one year license suspension.
Second offense should result in permanent revocation of driving license.

I pray you don't wipe out some poor family while you are driving while using
3G.

What an ass!

Honu

Oxford wrote:
> Steve explains what detractors don't understand about 3G.
>
> Told you so!
>
> Watch it and weep...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntnVxHIEuv4

Oh yeah...I'm in tears all right. Laughing at him not understanding the
communications landscape.


"The EDGE network works really great for the apps on most phones..."

Could it be the apps were taylored for a slow network instead of a fast
network and so many more apps might be unusable on EDGE?

"It perfect for (Google maps)..." if you don't mind some hardly better than
dial up modem speeds. But 3G is much better.

3G has and will always have better coverage than WiFi.

Oxford wrote:
> ah, so the flaw is related to obsolete cell towers, not the more modern
> approach of using higher density, but open 802.11

Ah, so the flaw is thinking that a thousand times more WiFi towers is less
expensive to deploy than cell towers.

Oxford wrote:
> extreme remote locations - where WiFi won't be for awhile)

Even if non-remote locations WiFi won't be there ever.

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

You clearly do not understand the difference between cellular and WiFi.

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

Citations please.


Let me explain a few things that you obviously do not understand.

WiFi can certainly go fifteen miles...
IF you have a 20 dB gain direction antenna at the far end.
IF the antenna is like 20 to 40 feet up in the air.
IF you can live with less than a one Mbps connection.
IF you can live with lots of path fade downtime.

WiFi can certainly go three miles...
IF you have a rooftop antenna.
IF you don't use a VoIP handset at street level, much less inside.
IF you can live with less than a 5 Mbps connection.
IF you live line of sight within three miles of a tower.
IF you don't intend to use a laptop on a park bench.
IF there is no additional RF interference.

"Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:Cp2Ii.4655$6o2.33@trnddc05...
>
> "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.
>

Interesting....... our troll / fanboy Oxford is completely silent, for once.

The "expert" in ALL things here - isn't after all. Really quite the opposite.

The silence speaks VOLUMES in this case, huh?