tOfficial iPhone news and discussion thread

[Fighting With A Vim]

Originally Posted by Naggs

Have you met Jim Carty?

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forum...een-giant.html

That's why I said it was "just about the least accurate thing I have ever seen posted". Carty's article takes the grand prize

But yes, #5's post is Carty-level dumb

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by #5

That is impressive for AT&T but Verizon customers are generally more sophisticated.

[DeputyMSU]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Getting a half a million new 2-year contracts in one weekend, half of which are new AT&T customers, must really suck for AT&T. For those doing the math, that's about $840,000,000 in service plan revenue for the next two years......all from just one single weekend of sales. That Apple, a billion dollar pain in the ass.

More like $720,000,000 after AT&T gives Apple its cut of the monthly subscriber fee.
Still not too shabby for AT&T.

[ming]

I would have an iPhone by now if it weren't for the fact that I loathe going back to AT&T. The are by far the worst carrier (at least in LA). I switched from Cingular to Verizon about 5 years ago and the improvement in cell service is like night and day. What sucks is that Verizon has the worst phones running on the best network. My current phone, a Moto Q, is the single crappiest POS cell phone I've ever used. So here I am debating whether to pick up an iPhone (the best cell phone I've ever seen) and deal with AT&T's spotty coverage and primitive EDGE network. The 1st phone call my buddy made on his iPhone to me was dropping out and full of static. And then there's the EDGE vs. 3G thing. Even my sluggish and buggy Moto Q can web browse circles around an iPhone. I can view about 5-6 websites while the iPhone is still loading the first. Of course the display of the website formats like crap on the Q and looks beautiful on the iPhone (when it finally loads).

Maybe I should just wait for the HTC 6800. Bigger and bulkier than the iPhone but uses the same processor and has more features and a WAY faster data network. Why couldn't Apple have made a deal with Verizon?? It would have been perfect.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by ming

And then there's the EDGE vs. 3G thing. Even my sluggish and buggy Moto Q can web browse circles around an iPhone. I can view about 5-6 websites while the iPhone is still loading the first. Of course the display of the website formats like crap on the Q and looks beautiful on the iPhone (when it finally loads).

EDGE in Lansing is clocking at around 175-200 kb/s right now. Yes, that's slow, but it's much faster than modem surfing on a 56k modem for instance. With the amount of WiFi hot spots these days though, the vast majority of iPhone users aren't going to be regularly surfing with EDGE. They'll be on WiFi....which is much faster than 3G cell network speeds usually.

Even my sluggish and buggy Moto Q can web browse circles around an iPhone.

Again though, that's not true if the iPhone is on WiFi.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by ming

Maybe I should just wait for the HTC 6800. Bigger and bulkier than the iPhone but uses the same processor and has more features and a WAY faster data network. Why couldn't Apple have made a deal with Verizon?? It would have been perfect.

Because Verizon forces phone manufacturers to let them load their locked and proprietary interface onto the phone, basically crippling half of the features on the phone. That wasn't going to fly with Apple.

Just wait, AT&T will update their data network. They're sitting on this amazing new device that just screams "use me to send data", and additionally have the largest smartphone selection of any provider. They know their data network is sub-par; they'll eventually catch it up.

At the end of the day, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint...whoever; you're gonna get screwed one way or the other (and likely from multiple angles). Our wireless telco industry in America is basically a joke, compared against the rest of the world. We seriously should be ashamed. Add to that the fact that we have one of the slowest broadband systems (when compared against Asian countries especially), and we really are an embarrassment.

For as much money as we give to our telcos, they should feel like the dirtiest, slimiest, sleeziest car salesman + prostitutes + lawyers amalgamation the world has ever seen. I don't know if entire companies can go to Hell, but if that is the case, the entire telco industry should probably stock up on those mini fans and AA batteries.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Because Verizon forces phone manufacturers to let them load their locked and proprietary interface onto the phone, basically crippling half of the features on the phone. That wasn't going to fly with Apple.

Just wait, AT&T will update their data network. They're sitting on this amazing new device that just screams "use me to send data", and additionally have the largest smartphone selection of any provider. They know their data network is sub-par; they'll eventually catch it up.

At the end of the day, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint...whoever; you're gonna get screwed one way or the other (and likely from multiple angles). Our wireless telco industry in America is basically a joke, compared against the rest of the world. We seriously should be ashamed. Add to that the fact that we have one of the slowest broadband systems (when compared against Asian countries especially), and we really are an embarrassment.

For as much money as we give to our telcos, they should feel like the dirtiest, slimiest, sleeziest car salesman + prostitutes + lawyers amalgamation the world has ever seen. I don't know if entire companies can go to Hell, but if that is the case, the entire telco industry should probably stock up on those mini fans and AA batteries.

Truth.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Truth.

And it makes me so, so very sad that I'm right.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

EDGE in Lansing is clocking at around 175-200 kb/s right now. Yes, that's slow, but it's much faster than modem surfing on a 56k modem for instance. With the amount of WiFi hot spots these days though, the vast majority of iPhone users aren't going to be regularly surfing with EDGE. They'll be on WiFi....which is much faster than 3G cell network speeds usually.

Ok, that's the other thing. About a dozen people at my company bought the iPhone. One of their main rationales was the claim that the iPhone would automatically connect to WiFi when available instead of EDGE. And since the city of LA is pretty much competely covered in WiFi they thought they would always be connected at high speed. So far this claim appears to be BS. They all had trouble connecting to the WiFi network at work, and walking down the street the iPhone had trouble locating and/or connecting to hardly any WiFi networks. We tested this on about a dozen iPhones for most of the day. The majority of the time download speeds hovered around 64-100kbits/sec. We hung out in a Cafe that advertised free WiFi and none of the iPhones could locate it. I know this is anecdotal, but the sample size is significant.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by ming

Ok, that's the other thing. About a dozen people at my company bought the iPhone. One of their main rationales was the claim that the iPhone would automatically connect to WiFi when available instead of EDGE. And since the city of LA is pretty much competely covered in WiFi they thought they would always be connected at high speed. So far this claim appears to be BS. They all had trouble connecting to the WiFi network at work, and walking down the street the iPhone had trouble locating and/or connecting to hardly any WiFi networks. We tested this on about a dozen iPhones for most of the day. The majority of the time download speeds hovered around 64-100kbits/sec. We hung out in a Cafe that advertised free WiFi and none of the iPhones could locate it. I know this is anecdotal, but the sample size is significant.

Maybe a silly question, but is it safe to assume that they entered in the key necessary to access said wi-fi networks?

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by ming

Ok, that's the other thing. About a dozen people at my company bought the iPhone. One of their main rationales was the claim that the iPhone would automatically connect to WiFi when available instead of EDGE. And since the city of LA is pretty much competely covered in WiFi they thought they would always be connected at high speed. So far this claim appears to be BS. They all had trouble connecting to the WiFi network at work, and walking down the street the iPhone had trouble locating and/or connecting to hardly any WiFi networks. We tested this on about a dozen iPhones for most of the day. The majority of the time download speeds hovered around 64-100kbits/sec. We hung out in a Cafe that advertised free WiFi and none of the iPhones could locate it. I know this is anecdotal, but the sample size is significant.

Sounds like they don't understand how it's intended to work. It automatically connects to WiFi routers that you have previously connected to. So it won't automatically connect to random open WiFi routers it's never connected to before. However, if it has connected to that wireless hotspot before, it'll pick it up and automatically connect.

So if you connected to your home WiFi network. Left for work, switched to EDGE during the day, then came home, it will recognize and rejoin your network automatically with no prompting. Same thing if you power it off then back on. As soon as it sees a hotspot it recognizes, it will connect automatically.

That's how it's been working in East Lansing anyway.

I'm not sure you'd want it connecting to any random hotspot you haven't specifically chosen anyway.

[ming]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Because Verizon forces phone manufacturers to let them load their locked and proprietary interface onto the phone, basically crippling half of the features on the phone. That wasn't going to fly with Apple.

Just wait, AT&T will update their data network. They're sitting on this amazing new device that just screams "use me to send data", and additionally have the largest smartphone selection of any provider. They know their data network is sub-par; they'll eventually catch it up.

At the end of the day, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint...whoever; you're gonna get screwed one way or the other (and likely from multiple angles). Our wireless telco industry in America is basically a joke, compared against the rest of the world. We seriously should be ashamed. Add to that the fact that we have one of the slowest broadband systems (when compared against Asian countries especially), and we really are an embarrassment.

For as much money as we give to our telcos, they should feel like the dirtiest, slimiest, sleeziest car salesman + prostitutes + lawyers amalgamation the world has ever seen. I don't know if entire companies can go to Hell, but if that is the case, the entire telco industry should probably stock up on those mini fans and AA batteries.

Ok, fair enough, but I wouldn't count on AT&T to be upgrading their network to compete with Verizon any time soon. Up to this point they have done next to nothing to keep up technology wise. They go and spend $50M to upgrade their EDGE network from 134kb to 200kb... oh boy. Verizon has been investing in their network constantly for years. It will take quite a bit of time and a huge amount of investment, the kind that AT&T has shown no interest in doing, to catch up to where Verizon is today!

When you see an AT&T iPhone and a Verizon smartphone go head to head browsing the web, the difference is astounding. Astounding how much faster the Verizon network is and astounding how beautiful the web pages display on the iPhone.

I wish I had both.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Maybe a silly question, but is it safe to assume that they entered in the key necessary to access said wi-fi networks?

I actually think they're just assuming it will randomly grab any open WiFi network it sees. If you walk down a road and there's 3 hotspots it's never seen before, it won't connect to them unless you ask it to. After you've successfully joined those 3 networks once though, it will recognize them and automatically login the next time you walk down that street.

[ming]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Maybe a silly question, but is it safe to assume that they entered in the key necessary to access said wi-fi networks?

The one's they were trying to access were supposed to be free and open. No passwords necessary. Constantly having to find passwords and enter them in your phone while walking down the street would be pretty impractical, no? That's why most iPhone users I've seen are on AT&T's network about 90% of the time in real world scenarios.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Sounds like they don't understand how it's intended to work. It automatically connects to WiFi routers that you have previously connected to. So it won't automatically connect to random open WiFi routers it's never connected to before. However, if it has connected to that wireless hotspot before, it'll pick it up and automatically connect.

So if you connected to your home WiFi network. Left for work, switched to EDGE during the day, then came home, it will recognize and rejoin your network automatically with no prompting. Same thing if you power it off then back on. As soon as it sees a hotspot it recognizes, it will connect automatically.

That's how it's been working in East Lansing anyway.

I'm not sure you'd want it connecting to any random hotspot you haven't specifically chosen anyway.

Yes, I know this. LA has a citywide WiFi network. That's the one they were trying to connect to. The iPhone seems to have difficulty finding and or maintaining a connection to it.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

I actually think they're just assuming it will randomly grab any open WiFi network it sees. If you walk down a road and there's 3 hotspots it's never seen before, it won't connect to them unless you ask it to. After you've successfully joined those 3 networks once though, it will recognize them and automatically login the next time you walk down that street.

Not the case.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by ming

Ok, fair enough, but I wouldn't count on AT&T to be upgrading their network to compete with Verizon any time soon. Up to this point they have done next to nothing to keep up technology wise. They go and spend $50M to upgrade their EDGE network from 134kb to 200kb... oh boy. Verizon has been investing in their network constantly for years. It will take quite a bit of time and a huge amount of investment, the kind that AT&T has shown no interest in doing, to catch up to where Verizon is today!

When you see an AT&T iPhone and a Verizon smartphone go head to head browsing the web, the difference is astounding. Astounding how much faster the Verizon network is and astounding how beautiful the web pages display on the iPhone.

I wish I had both.

Well AT&T has gotten around $1 billion in service plan revenue just since the iPhone launched. So far the sales have exceeded early predictions by 2x to 5x. Early estimates were that they'd sell 3 million of them this year and that's not taking into account the quick start. That would be around $5 million in service plan revenue alone.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by ming

Not the case.

It is the case in East Lansing. Not sure why it's not the case in LA. I know the air is different out there...

[PortlandSpartan]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Sounds like they don't understand how it's intended to work. It automatically connects to WiFi routers that you have previously connected to. So it won't automatically connect to random open WiFi routers it's never connected to before. However, if it has connected to that wireless hotspot before, it'll pick it up and automatically connect.

So if you connected to your home WiFi network. Left for work, switched to EDGE during the day, then came home, it will recognize and rejoin your network automatically with no prompting. Same thing if you power it off then back on. As soon as it sees a hotspot it recognizes, it will connect automatically.

That's how it's been working in East Lansing anyway.

I'm not sure you'd want it connecting to any random hotspot you haven't specifically chosen anyway.

OS X functions in the exact same manner.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by ming

Yes, I know this. LA has a citywide WiFi network. That's the one they were trying to connect to. The iPhone seems to have difficulty finding and or maintaining a connection to it.

Maybe LA's citywide WiFi network guys need to talk to East Lansing's WiFi network guys.

There's been lots of complaints about EDGE's speed, but I've heard nothing but good things about WiFi connectivity on the iPhones.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Well AT&T has gotten around $1 billion in service plan revenue just since the iPhone launched. So far the sales have exceeded early predictions by 2x to 5x. Early estimates were that they'd sell 3 million of them this year and that's not taking into account the quick start. That would be around $5 million in service plan revenue alone.

Well, AT&T surely is not short on cash. The problem is that they have willfully lagged behind everyone else in network technology for years. Whether or not the iPhone prompts them to rethink this strategy remains to be seen. I certainly hope it does because I don't want to compromise. So either I have to wait for AT&T to get it's act together or wait for an iPhone-like clone to arrive on a more modern network. 1st one wins my $$$.

[ming]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Maybe LA's citywide WiFi network guys need to talk to East Lansing's WiFi network guys.

There's been lots of complaints about EDGE's speed, but I've heard nothing but good things about WiFi connectivity on the iPhones.

I know, it's just anecdotal evidence so take it as you will. The guys who bought the iPhone's are all in IT or other computer related fields. They definitely know what they are doing. And I've not saying the WiFi never worked, it just didn't work nearly as well as they hoped. They spent the majority of their time on the EDGE network as opposed to WiFi while wandering around a city that is supposed to have WiFI everywhere.

[Trevor Barnes]

Originally Posted by ming

I know, it's just anecdotal evidence so take it as you will. The guys who bought the iPhone's are all in IT or other computer related fields. They definitely know what they are doing. And I've not saying the WiFi never worked, it just didn't work nearly as well as they hoped. They spent the majority of their time on the EDGE network as opposed to WiFi while wandering around a city that is supposed to have WiFI everywhere.

I guess that's just very confusing when that's not the case in little old East Lansing.

[#5]

Originally Posted by Trevor Barnes

Maybe LA's citywide WiFi network guys need to talk to East Lansing's WiFi network guys.

There's been lots of complaints about EDGE's speed, but I've heard nothing but good things about WiFi connectivity on the iPhones.

Wi-Fi phones a no-go, Siemens says; Dual-mode phones offer better experience, executive says. And next wave could be handsets that join 3G with cordless-phone tech.
David Meyer, CNET News.com
510 words
Jun 27, 2007
CNET News.com
Handsets that offer only Wi-Fi connectivity have been a failure, according to the U.K. director of home and office communications devices for Siemens. Speaking to ZDNet UK on Monday, John Smith said the market for such devices had failed to meet expectations. Wi-Fi-only mobile phones have been on the market for nearly two years, and are marketed as an easy way to access Internet telephony services such as Skype, wherever there is a Wi-Fi hot spot. However, soft clients for such services are now increasingly available for dual-mode handsets, which combine Wi-Fi connectivity with a cellular radio. "We hedged our bets as a manufacturer, bringing Wi-Fi-only handsets to the market," Smith said. "I think that category is, let us say, not getting the traction we initially thought it would get." Smith said the idea of such devices had not been helped by their early iterations, which had involved a "poor user experience," partly because they did not incorporate a browser to easily select and log on to a hot spot. "Clearly, the price of the silicon and battery life wasn't at a point where it would enable a mass market," Smith said. He also pointed out that such problems did not extend to current dual-mode versions of Wi-Fi handsets. What Smith did see as a possibility for the future, however, was a handset combining 3G connectivity with CAT-iq functionality. CAT-iq, short for cordless advanced technology for Internet and quality, is the new version of the DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) standard, the technology used by cordless home phones. Adding Internet Protocol services to DECT's voice capabilities, the technology can provide high-definition audio alongside comprehensive directory services. It is also being touted as a useful technology for streaming Internet radio in the home, because it operates in the 1.9GHz band rather than the 2.4GHz band cluttered by Wi-Fi and microwave ovens. "CAT-iq is for the home phone, mainly, but shares the same bandwidth as UMTS (3G), so it may be an enabler for people to create a UMTS/CAT-iq phone in the future," said Smith, who estimated that such products would arrive around 2012. Smith suggested that CAT-iq phones, despite being geared mainly toward the consumer market, could also find a small business market in those who want the audio quality of high-end audioconferencing systems, but at a lower price and better suited to small offices and home workers. The first Siemens products to incorporate CAT-iq, including a hybrid phone that can make calls on the traditional phone network along with IP-based calls, and a gateway product combining both CAT-iq and Wi-Fi connectivity, will appear in a few months' time, Smith said. David Meyer of ZDNet UK reported from London.
(c) CNET Networks Inc. All Rights Reserved.
© 2007 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva). All rights reserved. Terms of Use

[#5]

Originally Posted by hexydes

I'm gonna have to disagree. The iPhone's specs are pretty damn impressive. I think it has a 624MHz processor, which is really powerful (my smartphone only has a 201MHz CPU).

While I don't think that the iPhone is going to be adopted by the masses, it still is a very nice phone.

I'm talking in terms of cellular technology. Apple's cellular technology is primitive. As I said before, you put a phone on the PSP with a nice gui and you get a iphone.