At 19 Dec 2007 10:56:28 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> Keep in mind that YouTube does two videos for the iPhone: one high
> bandwidth for WiFi and a low bandwidth version for EDGE.

That's a neat idea. On my WinMo phone for slow EDGE connections I have
to download the video to the device first then play it back from device
memory, since streaming over EDGE is often jerky or drops a TON of frames.


Thanks again for the update!

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 19 Dec 2007 03:59:19 -0700 Tinman wrote:
>
>>
>> WTF? The iPhone doesn't use m.youtube.com
>
> I realize that, but at the time of the iPhone launch, the videos the
> iPhone was able to play roughly tracked the videos available on
> m.youtube.com. I just assumed (knowing full well the risks of
> ASSuming!) that YouTube was converting their "library" to both
> formats (iPhone's h.264 and
> m.youtube's .3gp) simultaneously.

I don't know about m.youtube's .3gp format but for the last few months I
haven't found anything on youtube.com that wasn't also on the iPhone. I
believe YouTube stated they would catch up around fall (with the iPhone
conversion).


>
> Interesting- so do you know if YouTube's conversion is complete, or
> are all new videos offered in the iPhone's format while older videos
> are processed over time?
>

I assume it's complete, but don't know for sure. I know that my own personal
YouTube videos (dating to 2005) weren't all available till about a month or
two ago. Seems to be complete.

Keep in mind that YouTube does two videos for the iPhone: one high bandwidth
for WiFi and a low bandwidth version for EDGE.


> My apologies to the iPhone, and thanks for the correction.

No biggie. Forgiven. ^_^


--
Mike

At 19 Dec 2007 03:59:19 -0700 Tinman wrote:

> Strike one...
>
>
> >>
> >> I'm watching it now.
> >
> > Did it make it to m.youtube.com, or are you using that new transcoder
> > site
> > that's "free for now?"
> >
>
> Strike two...
>
> WTF? The iPhone doesn't use m.youtube.com

I realize that, but at the time of the iPhone launch, the videos the iPhone
was able to play roughly tracked the videos available on m.youtube.com. I
just assumed (knowing full well the risks of ASSuming!) that YouTube was
converting their "library" to both formats (iPhone's h.264 and
m.youtube's .3gp) simultaneously.

> and the video in question
> has been playable on the iPhone since it was released--even via EDGE.
> No need for "that new transcoder site."

Interesting- so do you know if YouTube's conversion is complete, or are all
new videos offered in the iPhone's format while older videos are processed
over time?

My apologies to the iPhone, and thanks for the correction.

"Todd Allcock" wrote:
> At 18 Dec 2007 17:07:00 -0800 Kurt wrote:
>
>
>> > Sadly, you can't view it on an iPhone... ;-)

Strike one...


>>
>> I'm watching it now.
>
> Did it make it to m.youtube.com, or are you using that new transcoder site
> that's "free for now?"
>

Strike two...

WTF? The iPhone doesn't use m.youtube.com and the video in question has been
playable on the iPhone since it was released--even via EDGE. No need for
"that new transcoder site."


--
Mike

At 18 Dec 2007 17:07:00 -0800 Kurt wrote:


> > Sadly, you can't view it on an iPhone... ;-)
>
> I'm watching it now.

Did it make it to m.youtube.com, or are you using that new transcoder site
that's "free for now?"

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> At 17 Dec 2007 02:23:52 -0800 4phun wrote:
>
> > You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
> > displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone.
>
> Sadly, you can't view it on an iPhone... ;-)

I'm watching it now.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

> You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
> displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone. Why, the hardware
> and fast memory made the difference. The iphone even now on EDGE is
> better than many crap Smartphones loaded with a carriers bloadtware
> and crippled on a faster network. That would make many non iPhone
> owners in a two year contract CRY.

I guess you're the Slowsky Turtle from the Comcast commerical, my N95-3
breezes alot faster on 3g on a bad day, then an iphone on a good day.

On 2007-12-17, DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
> A good test of the connection speeds would be to tether both to laptop.
>
> Oh wait...can the iPhone even do that?

Yes. It takes a slight bit of work to set up, though.

4phun <[email protected]> wrote in
news:914341cd-1d26-4cb4-bf67-095e8210e5f3@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Dec 17, 8:11 am, CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>> 4phun <[email protected]> wrote in news:60d657c2-d4cc-43d6-8633-
>> [email protected]:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500, ned beaty <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >The iPhone just got even better!
>>
>> >> >http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>>
>> >> Not new iPhones. IPhones that may come out late in 2008.
>>
>> >> There is no 3G iPhone you can go buy.
>>
>> > You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
>> > displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone. Why, the
>> > hardware and fast memory made the difference. The iphone even now
>> > on EDGE is better than many crap Smartphones loaded with a carriers
>> > bloadtware and crippled on a faster network. That would make many
>> > non iPhone owners in a two year contract CRY.
>>
>> Not even close. Using an accelerator to get to a predetermined site
>> for e a demo is hardly impressive.
>>
>> In real life, the iPhone crawsl along in direct comparision to 3g
>> phones.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What you may not know if that many times my Verizon 3g (Yes I have VZ
> 3G too.) falls back to 1RX which is the slower Verizon data line. I am
> quite close to Atlanta or in downtown Atlanta all day long and it
> happens far more frequently then I would like. Verizon's 1 RX outside
> of being butt ugly slow is slower then EDGE. AT&T EDGE is 150% faster
> than VZN 1RX. Therefore the AT&T iPhones often are connected faster
> than my VZN phone which sucks since I am on the faster network with
> the Verizon phone. I also carry Nextel which IMHO sucks even on voice
> in the holes around here.
>

And in my area I never fall back to 2G technology, as in never. My
datacard allows me to use a wireless network to work almost as fast as
at the office and my phone is quite capable of streaming video and
music. If this thread were still going to the Verizon and Sprint
groups, you'd be in a much better position to gause whether your
experience is the norm or the exception.

And what network are they using in Europe?

DTC wrote:
> CozmicDebris wrote:
>> Not even close. Using an accelerator to get to a predetermined site
>> for e a demo is hardly impressive.
>>
>> In real life, the iPhone crawsl along in direct comparision to 3g phones.
>
> A good test of the connection speeds would be to tether both to laptop.
>
> Oh wait...can the iPhone even do that?

One of the reasons that the monthly pricing for the iPhone is relatively
low compared to the cost for a line on AT&T Wireless plus 3G data
(either tethered or using a 3G access device for USB, CardBus, or
ExpressCard) is precisely because it doesn't do 3G. They had to
differentiate between true 3G data plans, and access on devices like the
iPhone.

Some users have managed to tether their iPhone to their computers to use
the EDGE network, but it's quite a hack to get it to work.

When the 3G iPhone does appear in the U.S., it will likely have higher
monthly rates than the current model, especially if tethering is possible.

CozmicDebris wrote:
> Not even close. Using an accelerator to get to a predetermined site for e
> a demo is hardly impressive.
>
> In real life, the iPhone crawsl along in direct comparision to 3g phones.

A good test of the connection speeds would be to tether both to laptop.

Oh wait...can the iPhone even do that?

4phun <[email protected]> wrote in news:60d657c2-d4cc-43d6-8633-
[email protected]:

> On Dec 1, 8:30 am, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500, ned beaty <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The iPhone just got even better!
>>
>> >http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>>
>> Not new iPhones. IPhones that may come out late in 2008.
>>
>> There is no 3G iPhone you can go buy.
>
> You can view a video on YouTube of the iPhone loading faster,
> displaying faster on EDGE network than a 3G phone. Why, the hardware
> and fast memory made the difference. The iphone even now on EDGE is
> better than many crap Smartphones loaded with a carriers bloadtware
> and crippled on a faster network. That would make many non iPhone
> owners in a two year contract CRY.
>

Not even close. Using an accelerator to get to a predetermined site for e
a demo is hardly impressive.

In real life, the iPhone crawsl along in direct comparision to 3g phones.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 07 Dec 2007 06:09:50 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> > You mean, -hh demanding that I post my personal information is OK, but
> > my asking him to do so FIRST isn't?
>
> I don't recall that he ever said "post your personal information"

I didn't. Troll "Elmo" is simply flat-out lying (and its a
diversion).


> ...- just
> that you were "anonymous" which I took to mean fake name/e-mail.

Which was a minor point at best. The major point was to point out
Elmo's cowardiceness and hypocrisy of how he was hiding behind the "X-
No-Archive" option while he was trying to intimidate another poster by
stating how their comments were being archived for posterity.


> I don't think he's suggesting anyone should pony up a home address,
> phone number and blood type on usenet.

I literally said that I didn't really want his IRL information (its in
the archives). The reason why is that since it wasn't the source of
Elmo's hypocrisy, there was no real need for it. Besides, its not
like I was going to mail him a Christmas Card (even if I do brag some
by saying that it is a quite nice one this year :-).


> He posts with his real e-mail, you don't.
> That's fine. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but as a general rule, those
> who post with a real e-mail address seem to exhibit a higher level of
> politeness and courtesy to others, even when in disgreement.

It is hardly a coincidence that the more offensive (and invariably,
the intellectually stupid) trolls hide behind false names, fake email
addresses and so forth: they do it because they believe that they are
"safe" behind their computer if no one knows who they are. They think
that they can misbehave and they believe that they can "get away with
it", so its all an attempt to avoid accountability.

They can and will have their childish fun...but it is only a transient
and short term game: over time, they'll burn their bridges and
they'll end up lonely, with no friends and no future, both online and
in real life...a dead end loser.

And this isn't just blowing smoke in "theory", I've witnessed this
firsthand. One individual in particular used to be a good friend, but
roughly ten years ago, he degraded into an utter kook, and now
whenever he comes back online, whoever is around (not me - he has made
enemies everywhere) promptly gives him an electronic kick in the nuts
and he goes away for a couple more months. Thus, the hobby he loved
is now denied to him. Even one of his former IRL buddies has since
called him the "biggest asshole in usenet history", which is pretty
strong words for folks that have been online for 20+ years. It is a
pretty depressing story to discuss, but suffice to say that I believe
that Elmo is still young enough to avoid this fate if he wises up and
pulls his head out of his ass, pronto.


-hh

At 07 Dec 2007 06:09:50 -0500 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> You mean, -hh demanding that I post my personal information is OK, but
> my asking him to do so FIRST isn't?


I don't recall that he ever said "post your personal information"- just
that you were "anonymous" which I took to mean fake name/e-mail. I don't
think he's suggesting anyone should pony up a home address, phone number
and blood type on usenet. He posts with his real e-mail, you don't.
That's fine. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but as a general rule, those
who post with a real e-mail address seem to exhibit a higher level of
politeness and courtesy to others, even when in disgreement.

On Dec 6, 6:13 am, "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I guess it depends on your definition of "anonymous." I don't think it's a
> > particularly good idea to post all of your contact info on usenet-
>
> I agree.
>
> And only a moron ****tard would expect that anyone WOULD post his
> personal information on the Usenet.

Since that's precisely what the stooge "Elmo" was jumping up and down
about in his demands, he's criticizing himself and calling himself a
(cough) "...moron ****tard..."

FWIW, it seems that "Elmo" is almost as brilliant as a turtle:
afterall, how smart does a turtle have to be in order to sneak up on a
head of lettuce? :-)


-hh