Technology catch-all thread

[G&T]

Apple really needs to offer that phone through other providers. I have to figure there's more people in my market...the people who could use and benefit from a smartphone, might be willing to spend the money on one...but have no urge to be under an AT&T contract.

 

I think it was confirmed that they have an exclusive contract until 2012 (Link). The question is whether it makes sense for Apple to pull out of contract if AT&T is content with screwing customers. But I would guess that AT&T knows Apple can't leave without incurring large damages, so it is willing to raise termination fees. If Apple doesn't like it, then AT&T will still win.

 

Honestly, with the rise of Google in all this the iPhone could be second fiddle by 2012.

[StrangeSox]

I was pretty pissed off at the response to this. yeah, it could just be a deal with apple, but schools do these deals ALL THE TIME with TONS of other products. However, for all the money the school takes from students to do minor aesthetic updates and to buy more flat screen tvs to up their US and World Report rankings, at least the school is spending the students money on a device that could actually enhance their learning experience, and in regards to ebooks, save them some money. I applaud them. I wish so much of my tuition wasn't used in a way tailored to artificially inflate our ranking instead of saving some of our departments that were producing great professors but completely underfunded and would leave.

 

I don't have a problem with the school giving out computing devices. I don't think the iPad is the best device, and it seems like it was done, at least partially, as a way to market towards potential students. "Hey, I get a cool iPad if I go to IIT!"

[chw42]

I don't have a problem with the school giving out computing devices. I don't think the iPad is the best device, and it seems like it was done, at least partially, as a way to market towards potential students. "Hey, I get a cool iPad if I go to IIT!"

 

If I'm the average person coming out of high school who is not anti-Apple and has been brainwashed to worship Apple by most of my peers and I was having a tough decision deciding between IIT and another school, I'd probably want to go to IIT because of this.

Edited May 24, 2010 by chw42

[bmags]

I don't have a problem with the school giving out computing devices. I don't think the iPad is the best device, and it seems like it was done, at least partially, as a way to market towards potential students. "Hey, I get a cool iPad if I go to IIT!"

 

SOooo, they might get better students and educate them better. WHat a stupid decision.

 

Meanwhile, US NEws and World Report is counting how many flat screen tvs are at a college in order to rank them.

[Balta1701]

SOooo, they might get better students and educate them better. WHat a stupid decision.

Actually, what's more likely is they get press coverage for this deal, they get more applications because of it, they are therefore able to refuse admission to more applicants, and their admission standards look more stringent...to the filter that US News uses to rank colleges (which is a simple percentage of applicants admitted).

[bmags]

Actually, what's more likely is they get press coverage for this deal, they get more applications because of it, they are therefore able to refuse admission to more applicants, and their admission standards look more stringent...to the filter that US News uses to rank colleges (which is a simple percentage of applicants admitted).

 

"get better students"

[StrangeSox]

"get better students"

 

Assuming that those who would be swayed by "Hey, cool! an iPad!" would be the better students.

 

I'm not being very critical of the move, I just don't see the iPad as some great educational tool.

[Balta1701]

"get better rankings"

Fixed.

[Balta1701]

Wow, if you ever wanted to kill any desire I had to own an Apple product, this is the way to do it. Good work AT&T.

Just in time for the release of a new iPhone, AT&T will stop letting new customers sign up for its unlimited Internet data plan for smart phones and iPads and charge more for users who hog the most bandwidth.

 

AT&T hopes to ease congestion on its network, which has drawn complaints, particularly in big cities. But the approach could confuse customers unfamiliar with how much data it takes to watch a YouTube video or fire up a favorite app.

 

Current subscribers will be able to keep their $30-per-month unlimited plans, even if they renew their contracts. But starting Monday, new customers will have to choose one of two new data plans for all smart phones, including iPhones and BlackBerrys.

 

Subscribers who use little data – like those who may get dozens of e-mails a day but don't watch much video – will pay slightly less every month than they do now, while heavy users will be dinged with higher bills.

 

The move takes effect in time for the expected unveiling of Apple's new iPhone next week. Analysts said they expect other phone companies to follow. With no caps on consumption, data use could swamp wireless networks while revenue for the operators remains flat.

[Capn12]

Its hard to blame Apple though, but unfortunately, most cell service providers will be following suit. Unlimited data is a great idea, except for the sheer volume of usage going on right now for companies like AT&T. Of course, had AT&T used some of their Apple money to actually IMPROVE their network in urban areas, like they needed to do years ago, this may not have been an issue.

 

So, shame on you AT&T.

[Capn12]

What was even better, was that the AT&T info came out on the same day I bought the 64GB + 3G version from apple.com.

 

Hooray AT&T! Though, its really not a dealbreaker for me, as the WiFi was going to be my main source of connectivity probably 97% of the time

[Jenksismyhero]

It really shouldn't matter that much. 2gb a month is a lot. They claim that covers 98% of their customers. I'm sure the majority of that remaining 2% already has the unlimited plan.

[Chisoxfn]

Its hard to blame Apple though, but unfortunately, most cell service providers will be following suit. Unlimited data is a great idea, except for the sheer volume of usage going on right now for companies like AT&T. Of course, had AT&T used some of their Apple money to actually IMPROVE their network in urban areas, like they needed to do years ago, this may not have been an issue.

 

So, shame on you AT&T.

Improve the networks. In AT&T's defense, the unlimited data plan going away won't impact many Iphone users (not a ton use more than the 2Gigs that the 25 buck plan alllows). But there are a ton of ipad people that I'm sure will be pretty irate. That said I have to imagine that most people with an Ipad don't use an ATT data plan but rather opt to use the product through WIFI.

[Chisoxfn]

I stream Pandora every day on my drive to and from work though. So for me, I'd be f***ED. Thankfully I am on a superior network than that s*** ATT network at a superior price point as well.

[RockRaines]

If I'm the average person coming out of high school who is not anti-Apple and has been brainwashed to worship Apple by most of my peers and I was having a tough decision deciding between IIT and another school, I'd probably want to go to IIT because of this.

I love how liking Apple has to mean you were brain-washed. Not that you have had a superior end user experience with the hardware.

[RockRaines]

I stream Pandora every day on my drive to and from work though. So for me, I'd be f***ED. Thankfully I am on a superior network than that s*** ATT network at a superior price point as well.

Define superior network.

 

Each provider has its shortfalls, Verizon's network is a CDMA network which is good for now, but with more data streaming and users demanding flexibility for overseas travel, it is not sufficient in the long term. Verizon is actually moving to an LTE standard in the next few years, which is the only way they will get to 4G. GSM technology is about 10 times more prevalent around the world and is a much more mature and understood technology. This is what is used by ATT and most of the overseas providers. GSM covers about 85% of the world wide market, while CDMA is about 10%. The funny part is that in areas of more CDMA useage, GSM technology actually has a harder time working because of the interference caused by those devices. Of course in anywhere but the USA, this is not an issue whatsoever as GSM is pretty much the standard. In the US, coverage for CDMA seems much more prevalent because of the inclusion of analog networks, which will be phased out in the upcoming years. GSM is definitely lagging behind in rolling out the 3G coverage to its users, but analysts dont think this will be the case for long. With many more providers using the GSM standard around the globe, development has both more funds and more people behind it to continue to grow the technology into the future.

 

I use ATT because my company demands it for our worldwide travels, but for me, Verizon has always have much more stable coverage around the country, though in Chicago, ATT has always been strong for me. The growth of the iphone definitely caught ATT and its network by surprise, and with the new capabilities of the Iphone with possible ichat video streaming, I am guessing they are dumping money into expanding their 3G network. GSM has its positives and negatives, but coming from a technology background, my guess is that usually the global standard forces out the outlier like Nextel's technology which is being completely phased out. It will be interesting to see where Verizon goes with what could be their lone standard for this technology moving forward. Are they really trying to build a new 4G standard, or will they eventually move to GSM. Its an interesting conversation. Sorry for the essay, but I think its a very in depth topic much more advanced then "crappy network".

[iamshack]

I believe Jason is referring to Sprint.

 

And by the way, my iPad still rocks. I get more use out of this device than any laptop I have ever owned.

Edited June 3, 2010 by iamshack

[Chisoxfn]

Define superior network.

 

Each provider has its shortfalls, Verizon's network is a CDMA network which is good for now, but with more data streaming and users demanding flexibility for overseas travel, it is not sufficient in the long term. Verizon is actually moving to an LTE standard in the next few years, which is the only way they will get to 4G. GSM technology is about 10 times more prevalent around the world and is a much more mature and understood technology. This is what is used by ATT and most of the overseas providers. GSM covers about 85% of the world wide market, while CDMA is about 10%. The funny part is that in areas of more CDMA useage, GSM technology actually has a harder time working because of the interference caused by those devices. Of course in anywhere but the USA, this is not an issue whatsoever as GSM is pretty much the standard. In the US, coverage for CDMA seems much more prevalent because of the inclusion of analog networks, which will be phased out in the upcoming years. GSM is definitely lagging behind in rolling out the 3G coverage to its users, but analysts dont think this will be the case for long. With many more providers using the GSM standard around the globe, development has both more funds and more people behind it to continue to grow the technology into the future.

 

I use ATT because my company demands it for our worldwide travels, but for me, Verizon has always have much more stable coverage around the country, though in Chicago, ATT has always been strong for me. The growth of the iphone definitely caught ATT and its network by surprise, and with the new capabilities of the Iphone with possible ichat video streaming, I am guessing they are dumping money into expanding their 3G network. GSM has its positives and negatives, but coming from a technology background, my guess is that usually the global standard forces out the outlier like Nextel's technology which is being completely phased out. It will be interesting to see where Verizon goes with what could be their lone standard for this technology moving forward. Are they really trying to build a new 4G standard, or will they eventually move to GSM. Its an interesting conversation. Sorry for the essay, but I think its a very in depth topic much more advanced then "crappy network".

I know Verizon and Sprint are both moving to 4G networks, both are on the CDMA technology (which is also used in parts of Asia as well, but not used much, if at all in the European zones). The initial versions of 4G will not provide super significant improvements because there is still a lot to do and technically speaking ATT currently has more potential for there 3G to be faster than the current early versions of Sprint/Verizon's 4G. That will change in time and they are stating that in the next year to two the 4G coverage that will be provided by Verizon/Sprint will be superior to what ATT currently has and has in the pipeline (not to mention the fact that currently, in general, ATT lags behind the other major carries due to their distressed network). Sprint will be using the Wimax which people have some doubts about as to how strong of a technology it really will be.

 

The big thing that Verizon and Sprint have is that they have actively managed there network. Hell, you could make a case that Sprint has spent the most money developing and enhancing its network (both now and for the future) and during that time they have suffered in the phone department (pretty s***ty phones compared to Verizon/ATT). However, that is starting to change as well now that they will have phones developed specifically for the network they will be rolling out.

 

From what I have read in terms of highest speeds and the 4G success, the 1-3 year plan indicates that Sprint & Verizon will be battling each other with ATT behind. That said, ATT still has the Apple contract which is huge for them. Whether Apple eventually backs out of that agreement and pays the penalties associated with that (I assume mega $) who knows. If that were to happen it would alleviate some of ATT's problems but also put them in a really really bad position.

 

If I were to bet my money on any phone company completely dominating, it would be Verizon. They have the best combo of unique phones & current/future network coverage. Sprint is a sleeper in this but they took a massive hit for years and years of s***ty customer service (they got complacent). Since than Sprint has gotten its act majorly in gear but who knows.

 

The company I wouldn't be my money on would be ATT. They just have a lot of things going against them currently. However, major improvements to GSM would enable ATT & Tmobile (who I believe is on GSM as well) to potentially flourish.

 

 

[iamshack]

So you don't find it ironic that the reason AT&T has a distressed network is because so many people are enjoying the use of superior products on it?

 

The fact that that is seen as some sort of weakness on AT&T's part is, well, strange to me.

[RockRaines]

I know Verizon and Sprint are both moving to 4G networks, both are on the CDMA technology (which is also used in parts of Asia as well, but not used much, if at all in the European zones). The initial versions of 4G will not provide super significant improvements because there is still a lot to do and technically speaking ATT currently has more potential for there 3G to be faster than the current early versions of Sprint/Verizon's 4G. That will change in time and they are stating that in the next year to two the 4G coverage that will be provided by Verizon/Sprint will be superior to what ATT currently has and has in the pipeline (not to mention the fact that currently, in general, ATT lags behind the other major carries due to their distressed network). Sprint will be using the Wimax which people have some doubts about as to how strong of a technology it really will be.

 

The big thing that Verizon and Sprint have is that they have actively managed there network. Hell, you could make a case that Sprint has spent the most money developing and enhancing its network (both now and for the future) and during that time they have suffered in the phone department (pretty s***ty phones compared to Verizon/ATT). However, that is starting to change as well now that they will have phones developed specifically for the network they will be rolling out.

 

From what I have read in terms of highest speeds and the 4G success, the 1-3 year plan indicates that Sprint & Verizon will be battling each other with ATT behind. That said, ATT still has the Apple contract which is huge for them. Whether Apple eventually backs out of that agreement and pays the penalties associated with that (I assume mega $) who knows. If that were to happen it would alleviate some of ATT's problems but also put them in a really really bad position.

 

If I were to bet my money on any phone company completely dominating, it would be Verizon. They have the best combo of unique phones & current/future network coverage. Sprint is a sleeper in this but they took a massive hit for years and years of s***ty customer service (they got complacent). Since than Sprint has gotten its act majorly in gear but who knows.

 

The company I wouldn't be my money on would be ATT. They just have a lot of things going against them currently. However, major improvements to GSM would enable ATT & Tmobile (who I believe is on GSM as well) to potentially flourish.

Now we're talking.

 

The thing is that ATT's GSm technology has the backing of all of Europe, Asia and South America as far as development goes for both their 4G technology and any enhancements to their already superior 3G technology. The 4G technology that Verizon is rolling out is a very small footprint and many doubt the actual funding behind such a move as they would have to really start abandoning their 3G technology and make a commitment to the 4G LTE network that at the moment is almost exactly like the GSM 3G network. With such a large worldwide market share, GSM is clearly the leader in this space regardless of what maps on commercials tell people. GSM as of right now is the standard for cellular service, while CDMA is a nice bit player in America. I would actually put alot more stock into one of the Asian or European GSM companies to expand through ATT into the US and really make this a serious turf war.

 

If I was to bet on a technology, I still think its whoever solves the cell network/WiMax issue. If a carrier can somehow seamlessly marry coverage from traditional cell towers and VOIP from an internet provider including home and public networks, then we have a very reliable, fast and technologically superior provider.

[RockRaines]

So you don't find it ironic that the reason AT&T has a distressed network is because so many people are enjoying the use of superior products on it?

 

The fact that that is seen as some sort of weakness on AT&T's part is, well, strange to me.

Their 3G growth was exponentially faster than they thought it would be. CDMA's "3G" technology is really something that has been around a bit longer and didnt require the advances that GSM's did for rollout. Their "distressed" network is simply a lack of 3G coverage in certain areas which is overloading some of the towers which have to stream the data back to the sources. This wont be an issue for long as this has been ATT's push for over a year. In fact in Chicago, its made some major strides. Of course like I said before, CDMA devices interfere with GSM calls, so in large cities, more CDMA makes it harder for GSM devices to work properly.

 

But clearly ATT has had superior devices, both on blackberries and now the Iphone.

[RockRaines]

I believe Jason is referring to Sprint.

 

And by the way, my iPad still rocks. I get more use out of this device than any laptop I have ever owned.

I'm getting one shortly. We have rolled them out for most of our mobile workers in my office, and they literally have thrown their laptops away. It does eveything you need, faster. Running outlook on it is awesome, SFDC, SAP, anything is easier.

Edited June 3, 2010 by RockRaines

[Chisoxfn]

So you don't find it ironic that the reason AT&T has a distressed network is because so many people are enjoying the use of superior products on it?

 

The fact that that is seen as some sort of weakness on AT&T's part is, well, strange to me.

No, ATT paid a huge amount of money for exclusive rights to a product. There is nothing about there network that is superior to the other providers. Just one in a list of problems is the fact that they are over-capacity due to the Iphone, but other networks have more bandwith to handle it.

[Chisoxfn]

Now we're talking.

 

The thing is that ATT's GSm technology has the backing of all of Europe, Asia and South America as far as development goes for both their 4G technology and any enhancements to their already superior 3G technology. The 4G technology that Verizon is rolling out is a very small footprint and many doubt the actual funding behind such a move as they would have to really start abandoning their 3G technology and make a commitment to the 4G LTE network that at the moment is almost exactly like the GSM 3G network. With such a large worldwide market share, GSM is clearly the leader in this space regardless of what maps on commercials tell people. GSM as of right now is the standard for cellular service, while CDMA is a nice bit player in America. I would actually put alot more stock into one of the Asian or European GSM companies to expand through ATT into the US and really make this a serious turf war.

 

If I was to bet on a technology, I still think its whoever solves the cell network/WiMax issue. If a carrier can somehow seamlessly marry coverage from traditional cell towers and VOIP from an internet provider including home and public networks, then we have a very reliable, fast and technologically superior provider.

Sprint seems to have a leg up in the whole VOIP thing but they haven't been able to come close to doing what they were originally hoping they would be capable of doing. I could definitely see a big cell phone company from outside of the US getting involved and getting ATT whipped into shape. They have really let there network deteriorate despite being on a platform that is considered favorable around the world.

 

However, I'm not sure exactly GSM ended up winning out in world wide standards vs CDMA. Do you happen to know why? I thought part of the reason was that the European Union backed one source a long time ago so that happens to be what they went with. Where as in the US our government in a sense tends to stay out of those type of issues. It is why in some ways electroncially we can fall behind because we end up with companies investing in multiple platforms. However, it also tends to leads to some cool inventions and innovation.

[Chisoxfn]

Their 3G growth was exponentially faster than they thought it would be. CDMA's "3G" technology is really something that has been around a bit longer and didnt require the advances that GSM's did for rollout. Their "distressed" network is simply a lack of 3G coverage in certain areas which is overloading some of the towers which have to stream the data back to the sources. This wont be an issue for long as this has been ATT's push for over a year. In fact in Chicago, its made some major strides. Of course like I said before, CDMA devices interfere with GSM calls, so in large cities, more CDMA makes it harder for GSM devices to work properly.

 

But clearly ATT has had superior devices, both on blackberries and now the Iphone.

That might change a bit. ATT more than any other provider is so reliant on a 3rd party provider. Yes, they all rely on the LG's/Blackberry/etcs of the wrold, but ATT is the only one with this huge exclusive rights deal that they rely on for a major chunk of their business (and the Iphone business tends to be there biggest $ maker as the smartphone segment has much higher profit margins).

 

The Android base is growing significantly and most of the good Android based phones are being released on the CDMA platforms and quite frankly if I was going to get behind a company during a war, I'd get behind Google. They should see an extraordinary market share gain as they continue to gain notoriety on the Verizon and Sprint networks, not to mention the new 4G phones being releasd by Verizon/Sprint appear to be incredible phones. Iphones are also incredible but more and more phones are capable of doing what an iphone can do at a lesser smart with more carrier flexibility.

 

I also am not completely convinced that ATT has the best Blackberry phone. All of the BB phones with the exception of the storm appear to be kind of similar (from a general consumers standpoint). The big difference is on when the most recent model was released on each carrier, but be it a curve/tour/bold/etc they all tend to be similar. Only question is whether you need a world wide phone or not and than if you wnat a touch form (see storm).

 

The European countries have some badass technology so I'd be really curious to see how that market does. I also am not sure who streams more...US or other countries. I know the rest of the world texts more than the US (albeit US texts a lot more than we used to), but I see us as being larger data hogs for some reason (complete guess though as I haven't looked into that).