cere
Apr 14, 12:20 PM
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Why? All that article says is manufacturers can add TB, not that the will.
Everyone was free to add Firewire too. Look how well that went over.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Why? All that article says is manufacturers can add TB, not that the will.
Everyone was free to add Firewire too. Look how well that went over.
mdntcallr
Sep 14, 12:38 AM
sounds like a nice starter level phone/ipod.
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
but what I and many other people want is a smart phone, for:
Treo/Blackberry like functionality
Camera with decent megapixel, maybe 3 megapixels (settle for 1.3) that moves.
so you can have "isight" built in. also ichatav with video.
Ipod, with 80 gb hard drive.
Video capability, both from itunes, and even with streamed cellular broadband via slingbox or from more
oh well... to dream
nagromme
Oct 27, 09:40 AM
So, basically:
* Greenpeace takes actions that hurt their own worthy cause (the problems are real, but the ranking stuff is the wrong kind of attention-seeking) :o
* Apple takes action to suppress the message and instead draws even more attention to it :o
The fallout from the above missteps, we should hope, is that Apple AND other companies DO improve their environmental practices. For ALL our sakes. Apple should be praised for what they have done right (which is a lot--look at the shrinking of packaging in certain cases) and should not be let off the hook for what they still should do better.
Still, there are always people looking for a reason to be pro-corporations and anti-anyone-working-for-good-causes. So that bandwagon has seating available :)
* Greenpeace takes actions that hurt their own worthy cause (the problems are real, but the ranking stuff is the wrong kind of attention-seeking) :o
* Apple takes action to suppress the message and instead draws even more attention to it :o
The fallout from the above missteps, we should hope, is that Apple AND other companies DO improve their environmental practices. For ALL our sakes. Apple should be praised for what they have done right (which is a lot--look at the shrinking of packaging in certain cases) and should not be let off the hook for what they still should do better.
Still, there are always people looking for a reason to be pro-corporations and anti-anyone-working-for-good-causes. So that bandwagon has seating available :)
Silentwave
Jul 17, 07:36 PM
All at WWDC?
With the bumped up date for Merom, it is all possible. Since core duo is going to see a price drop the mac mini may get speed bumped, the MB may see a price drop or speed bump, merom MBPs *may* be released, iMac may get updated, and the MPs will come uot.
With the bumped up date for Merom, it is all possible. Since core duo is going to see a price drop the mac mini may get speed bumped, the MB may see a price drop or speed bump, merom MBPs *may* be released, iMac may get updated, and the MPs will come uot.
tatonka
Apr 20, 01:40 PM
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
So why does it track the cell tower in the UK as well then? Click 2. Video (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/)
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
So why does it track the cell tower in the UK as well then? Click 2. Video (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/)
vettori
Mar 22, 03:43 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Let me use two 27" as a dual monitor thunderbolt-connected to my mac book pro and I'll be happy !
Let me use two 27" as a dual monitor thunderbolt-connected to my mac book pro and I'll be happy !
MacinDoc
Sep 14, 03:55 PM
Why is everyone saying that Aperture 2.0 announcement is too little???
Photokina is all about *photo*. Aperture is about digital *photo* workflow. Its workflow features were pretty groundbreaking a year ago. Yes, it was buggy before first update. Yes, it was slow, and still is too some extent. But the features they showed -- autostacking, the loupe, the library -- are *fantastic*. They had a year to improve -- why not hold a big event to show it off!
No one would say that Adobe hosting an event to show new version of Photoshop would be to little, right? Same goes for Apple.
I'm desperately waiting for the update. If AP update (2.0, 1.5 -- whatever) improves speed on new Mac Pros, my order for a MP + AP goes right in. And $3.5K go to pay for it.
I, for one, can't remember the last time Apple had a press event to introduce just one item (although the iPod case introduced along with the iPod HiFi was a bit of a joke, but then again, Apple promoted that event as the introduction of a few minor fun things). Steve knows that the faithful hunger for "One More Thing"; it's our well-known addiction, and a large part of what keeps Apple in business.
Photokina is all about *photo*. Aperture is about digital *photo* workflow. Its workflow features were pretty groundbreaking a year ago. Yes, it was buggy before first update. Yes, it was slow, and still is too some extent. But the features they showed -- autostacking, the loupe, the library -- are *fantastic*. They had a year to improve -- why not hold a big event to show it off!
No one would say that Adobe hosting an event to show new version of Photoshop would be to little, right? Same goes for Apple.
I'm desperately waiting for the update. If AP update (2.0, 1.5 -- whatever) improves speed on new Mac Pros, my order for a MP + AP goes right in. And $3.5K go to pay for it.
I, for one, can't remember the last time Apple had a press event to introduce just one item (although the iPod case introduced along with the iPod HiFi was a bit of a joke, but then again, Apple promoted that event as the introduction of a few minor fun things). Steve knows that the faithful hunger for "One More Thing"; it's our well-known addiction, and a large part of what keeps Apple in business.
bobob
Apr 22, 03:13 PM
SSDs still need to get cheaper before I plunk down money on a MBA. The capacities need to increase too. Ah..maybe a few years from now.
Now is already a few years from then.
Now is already a few years from then.
daneoni
Sep 12, 05:04 PM
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.
My thoughts exactly.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.
My thoughts exactly.
berkleeboy210
Sep 19, 01:33 PM
Good, Now lets have some more studios come on in, and just maybe i'll buy the 80gb ipod
MacBram
Apr 29, 03:13 AM
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Very true.
yes, 50% or so came from iPhone and iPad. So what's your point? These run on iOS which is a scaled-down version of the actual OS X operating system.
As far as "PC" marketshare: Apple has shown most of the growth in industry YoY for about 30 quarters in a row. Yes, it is easy to say that it is easy to double Market share when you are talking about a couple of percentage points. But we can still put it in perspective:
-- Apple has about 90% marketshare of computers at 1000 dollars and above.
-- Apples sells computers to consumers who vote with their dollars. PC 90% is due to large corporate buys and lock-ins and also counts anything that runs some version of Windows, possibly including cash registers and petrol pumps.
-- Apple is either about 3rd or about 5th largest PC maker by unit in the world, depending on how you count it: a lot of studies do not count iPads in the total because of some arbitrary metric or because they are paid by MS or another big company to exclude it.
-- consumers are, in fact, buying iPads in place of net books, which were oh so popular a couple of years ago, when it was said Apple could not compete and Apple should build an entry level netbook. Since then, PC makers have lost a lot of value trying to compete for the bottom, at the same time MS continues to generate serial numbers for exorbitant amounts.
-- Apple completely dominates mobile and portable -- MacBook Air and MacBook Pro at high end, and iPad at low end.
-- Apple's revenue this past quarter is about as much as Dell's whole Market cap! Maybe Mikey should just sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders (but who would want it). He did innovate BTO and online shop distribution chain back in the day. But he hasn't innovated products, production methods, materials, batteries, SoCs, supply chain, retail, customer support and satisfacton, etc.. Etc., in the way Apple so handily has.
Steve Jobs said years ago that he did concede the PC desktop "war", but the battlefield has moved on and new territories have opened up for exploration and colonizing. There isn't a single MS explorer or settler on the horizon. Unless you count their beloved interactive multi-camera tracking system -- and only then has it become worthwhile when they finally came up with the idea to put it in front of the TV for entertainment instead of sticking it in a bathtub. Meanwhile, Apple is working on SDKs that will allow every developer to create immersive 3D interfaces because face recognition technology with the one FaceTime camera will allow the device to calculate angle and distance of face from screen.
What it has to do with MS is that they have an aging dinosaur of an OS that is still DOS based and that they can't properly scale, and this becomes ever more evident by the day. They can only add lipstick to their old products and many of their customers still prefer Windows XP! They need to start again and reengineer an OS from scratch as Apple did when it bought Jobs' NEXT.
But can MS do it? Highly doubtful. DOS was bought in and they made the deal of the century with it. They put Windows UI over it, finally, because they had access to Apple source code for ten years. they absolutely wreck anything they get their hands on, ala Danger. Now the SalesGuy is running the company... fastest path to irrelevance.
MS' immediate existence is not in jeopardy -- they will continue to print their undeserved money for years to come. But their future relevance grows ever more questionable by the day. In short, Apple has plenty of headroom for Mac OS to grow into, while Windows at 90% can only go down.
Very true.
yes, 50% or so came from iPhone and iPad. So what's your point? These run on iOS which is a scaled-down version of the actual OS X operating system.
As far as "PC" marketshare: Apple has shown most of the growth in industry YoY for about 30 quarters in a row. Yes, it is easy to say that it is easy to double Market share when you are talking about a couple of percentage points. But we can still put it in perspective:
-- Apple has about 90% marketshare of computers at 1000 dollars and above.
-- Apples sells computers to consumers who vote with their dollars. PC 90% is due to large corporate buys and lock-ins and also counts anything that runs some version of Windows, possibly including cash registers and petrol pumps.
-- Apple is either about 3rd or about 5th largest PC maker by unit in the world, depending on how you count it: a lot of studies do not count iPads in the total because of some arbitrary metric or because they are paid by MS or another big company to exclude it.
-- consumers are, in fact, buying iPads in place of net books, which were oh so popular a couple of years ago, when it was said Apple could not compete and Apple should build an entry level netbook. Since then, PC makers have lost a lot of value trying to compete for the bottom, at the same time MS continues to generate serial numbers for exorbitant amounts.
-- Apple completely dominates mobile and portable -- MacBook Air and MacBook Pro at high end, and iPad at low end.
-- Apple's revenue this past quarter is about as much as Dell's whole Market cap! Maybe Mikey should just sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders (but who would want it). He did innovate BTO and online shop distribution chain back in the day. But he hasn't innovated products, production methods, materials, batteries, SoCs, supply chain, retail, customer support and satisfacton, etc.. Etc., in the way Apple so handily has.
Steve Jobs said years ago that he did concede the PC desktop "war", but the battlefield has moved on and new territories have opened up for exploration and colonizing. There isn't a single MS explorer or settler on the horizon. Unless you count their beloved interactive multi-camera tracking system -- and only then has it become worthwhile when they finally came up with the idea to put it in front of the TV for entertainment instead of sticking it in a bathtub. Meanwhile, Apple is working on SDKs that will allow every developer to create immersive 3D interfaces because face recognition technology with the one FaceTime camera will allow the device to calculate angle and distance of face from screen.
What it has to do with MS is that they have an aging dinosaur of an OS that is still DOS based and that they can't properly scale, and this becomes ever more evident by the day. They can only add lipstick to their old products and many of their customers still prefer Windows XP! They need to start again and reengineer an OS from scratch as Apple did when it bought Jobs' NEXT.
But can MS do it? Highly doubtful. DOS was bought in and they made the deal of the century with it. They put Windows UI over it, finally, because they had access to Apple source code for ten years. they absolutely wreck anything they get their hands on, ala Danger. Now the SalesGuy is running the company... fastest path to irrelevance.
MS' immediate existence is not in jeopardy -- they will continue to print their undeserved money for years to come. But their future relevance grows ever more questionable by the day. In short, Apple has plenty of headroom for Mac OS to grow into, while Windows at 90% can only go down.
cdallen
Mar 29, 11:27 AM
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (S60; SymbOS; Opera Mobi/SYB-1103211396; U; en-US) Presto/2.7.81 Version/11.00)
I can belief this. Nokia is a strong brand and will definitely have a large impact on WP7 marketshare. The phone market does'nt revolve around the States.
Completely agree... Cost is a huge factor that will really come in to play here.
Nokia and Windows... They will revive each other!
I can belief this. Nokia is a strong brand and will definitely have a large impact on WP7 marketshare. The phone market does'nt revolve around the States.
Completely agree... Cost is a huge factor that will really come in to play here.
Nokia and Windows... They will revive each other!
nagromme
Mar 30, 11:35 AM
I don’t much care about this battle either way—I can see why Apple wants to defend the term they popularized for the ecosystem they were first to build. And I can see why they might lose. Either way won’t help or hurt any of the parties involved that much. (The Amazon Mobile Market could survive just fine, if it’s good; and a name alone won’t make any other mobile software platform come close to touching iOS!)
But this is funny:
"the simple fact that those companies were using the term in the first place indicates that the term is generic”
In that case, if you violate a trademark, you’re automatically not violating a trademark! :p
But this is funny:
"the simple fact that those companies were using the term in the first place indicates that the term is generic”
In that case, if you violate a trademark, you’re automatically not violating a trademark! :p
BrianMojo
Sep 5, 03:56 PM
Come on Apple, show us the HD. In a time when everyone's standoffish about HD because of the format wars Apple adopting the technology would mean you would never have bought into the wrong technology -- and eventually I imagine it would become the standard.
Come on Apple, push the technology forward like you know you should. Please?
Come on Apple, push the technology forward like you know you should. Please?
rtdunham
Oct 27, 11:16 AM
For all of Steve Jobs' zen-attitude, vegetarianism, often-proclaimed "do the right thing" stance, and Apple's financial liquidity, there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the change and Apple isn't willing to move in the right direction with their products.
can anyone--maybe you, true777, since i assume you're making the statement above based on personal knowledge--post pics showing the packaging for a Dell or Gateway or HP notebook computer vs apple's packaging for a comparable product? What about iPod packaging vs that for other MP3 players?
until we know the differences, it's hard to know where to stand on this issue, and impossible to conclude "there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the hange and apple isn't willing..."
can anyone--maybe you, true777, since i assume you're making the statement above based on personal knowledge--post pics showing the packaging for a Dell or Gateway or HP notebook computer vs apple's packaging for a comparable product? What about iPod packaging vs that for other MP3 players?
until we know the differences, it's hard to know where to stand on this issue, and impossible to conclude "there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the hange and apple isn't willing..."
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
oTaRu
Apr 25, 02:10 PM
Are they going to launch it soon? June/July period?
I doubt it as they had just refresh their MBPs not long ago...
I doubt it as they had just refresh their MBPs not long ago...
lexidata
May 3, 10:37 AM
I've just finish chatting with a person on the apple website. She told me that I can use the new imac (21 and 27") thunderbold input to use the imac as an external display. Only if it comes from a thunderbolt output (like an macbook pro for exemple).
Umbongo
Apr 30, 04:16 PM
Wonder if the top of the line Core i7 Sandy Bridge iMac will be faster than many of the SP Mac Pro configurations.
It'll be faster than the quad core models for sure and is comparable to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model as shown in these benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142).
It'll be faster than the quad core models for sure and is comparable to the 3.33Ghz 6-core model as shown in these benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/287?vs=142).
Rodimus Prime
Apr 19, 06:20 PM
Samsung can easily be replaced. Apple doesn't need them.
you have that backwards.
Samsung can replace Apple as a client. Apple can not replace Samsung as a supplier.
Reason Samsung can do it is because demand for LCD, flash chips ect is out pacing supply.
Apple can not replace Samsung for the same reason. no one else has the capacity to fill those orders.
you have that backwards.
Samsung can replace Apple as a client. Apple can not replace Samsung as a supplier.
Reason Samsung can do it is because demand for LCD, flash chips ect is out pacing supply.
Apple can not replace Samsung for the same reason. no one else has the capacity to fill those orders.
zhemgang
Sep 14, 10:02 AM
The Apple laptops are a staple machine for Mac using pro photographers so this would be a perfect event to announce an upgrade along with a new version of Aperture. It would look rather odd to have new C2D iMacs and MacPros without an upgraded MBP.
cmaier
Nov 23, 01:09 PM
http://www.rogueamoeba.com/utm/2009/11/23/airfoil-speakers-touch-1-0-2-is-now-available/
Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.
But the posters here who were defending apple won't admit they were wrong.
Looks like Apple admitted it was in the wrong.
But the posters here who were defending apple won't admit they were wrong.
TallManNY
Mar 22, 01:23 PM
Good news. My Mom needs a new iMac due to screen issues on her ancient machine, so she will be getting my hand-me-down 24-inch Core 2 and I will be buying an upgrade. I would like to see the 24-inch come back, but will probably consider and go with the 27-inch.
Hope these machines don't run too hot or have too many mechanical problems. As long as Apple doesn't unnecessarily try to make these things another 1/4 inch thin, then I'm guessing these are okay right off the bat.
Hope these machines don't run too hot or have too many mechanical problems. As long as Apple doesn't unnecessarily try to make these things another 1/4 inch thin, then I'm guessing these are okay right off the bat.
JAT
Mar 23, 04:48 PM
MADD needs to come out with an application that makes it easier for citizens to notify the cops of reckless and drunk drivers instead of having congress pull these apps!!!
Which people can use while....driving?
Which people can use while....driving?