Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: Christopher A. Lee on 7 Aug 2010 17:20
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:16:17 -0600, "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>"ZnU" <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote in message
>news:znu-7283CB.14165507082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET...
>> In article <08sq56l9gi1u4hsrbecr24kadau1n7ph0i(a)4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:51:44 -0400, in
>>> <znu-1D9F45.05514407082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
>>> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <050820101301232886%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>,
>>> > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <lloydparsons-2C9285.10404005082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd
>>> >> Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > And for all the complaints about how good/bad AT&T is,
>>> >> > there has been much conjecture that if any other provider had been
>>> >> > given
>>> >> > the iPhone exclusive, they would have had the same problems that
>>> >> > AT&T
>>> >> > has had with the useage patterns.
>>> >>
>>> >> except that with the explosion of android phones, you don't see very
>>> >> many complaints about verizon, yet you still see complaints about
>>> >> at&t.
>>> >
>>> >This is not especially meaningful. The iPhone has faced _far_ more
>>> >scrutiny than the confused mess of Android phones various carriers are
>>> >now selling.
>>>
>>> I respectfully disagree -- Android has received enormous scrutiny.
>>
>> Antennagate demonstrates _very_ clearly that Apple is not remotely held
>> to the same standard as other industry participants. It is simply
>> unimaginable that any such controversy could have arisen with respect to
>> any other specific handset model.
>
>
>Perhaps, but I see it as a popularity issue, coupled with the dearth of
>models. If Nokia or Motorola had a "radical new" antenna design on one of
>their phones with a similar problem, it'd be one model of dozens. Other
>than Apple continuing to sell "last year's model" along with the iPhone du
>jour, the iPhone 4 is THE Apple phone, meaning if the device has an alleged
>problem, the "entire line" has an alleged problem. If there was an iPhone
>Classic, iPhone Nano, iPhone Shuffle, etc., I think this would be less of a
>big deal.

Good point.

From: Jeff Liebermann on 7 Aug 2010 17:41
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:02:13 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:

>I'm increasingly convinced there's no particularly good reason to count
>all Android phones in one pool when making comparisons.

No problem. Instead of comparing about 5 major operating systems used
in cell phones, we'll just chop it into vendor, operator, or model
classifications to insure that nobody can extract a valid comparison
from the resultant mess. It's much like comparing Linux users with
Windoze, where there are about 7 Windoze mutations, but 300 Linux
distributions.

>They're not from
>the same vendor.

I should hope not. I was seriously worried about Google dominated
monopoly, where Google pulls all the strings and all the other vendors
receive late or obsolete releases. It's still a potential problem,
but fortunately, has not materialized. Do you want everything from
one vendor?

>They don't provide a unified set of hardware or
>software capabilities or a consistent user experience across devices.

I should hope not. The last thing the vendors would want is a
standardization of features and performance, where price would be the
only possible distinction. Standards, both de facto and de jure, are
generally a good thing, but not while the technology obsoletes itself
every 2-3 years.

>And a lot of Android phones are sold with relatively little mention of
>'Android'.

Buyers are often confused by facts, figures, numbers, and numbers. For
such buyers, it's best to discuss the "image" that wearing such a cell
phone would provide the user. When you bought your latest
microprocessor controlled consumer appliance (TV, DVR, microwave oven,
hi-fi, etc), was the choice of operating system of any importance or
interest?

>If you look at the application sales estimates, it's not
>clear that users even understand Android as a platform;

I don't see the connection. If app sales were higher, it would not
necessarily create a better understanding of the OS by the users. For
example, ask a typical member of the GUM (great unwashed masses) how
many cylinders are in their automobile engine. If they got that
right, ask them if it has a carburetor or fuel injection and possibly
the displacement. Most will not know. It's not necessary to know
what's under the hood in order to drive the vehicle.

However, you might be right about users not understanding that Android
is an OS. More likely, they equate Android to being an alternative to
Apple products.

>I suspect many
>are just buying Android phones as more capable 'feature' phones.

Maybe. I suggest you consider brand loyalty. I don't mean Apple iOS
versus Android brand loyalty. I mean AT&T versus Verizon. It's been
demonstrated that there's little loyalty to AT&T and that a large
chunk of iPhone users would move to Verizon if they offered an Verizon
iPhone. Keep your eye on the churn rate to see who's has the most
loyal customers. You might find these articles enlightening:
<http://voice-quality.tmcnet.com/topics/phone-service/articles/93062-att-churn-rate-offers-lesson.htm>
<http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/11152.html>

>Android might be more properly thought of as a common open source
>codebase that handset vendors can draw on when building their phones
>than as a mobile platform to be directly compared to Apple's or RIM's.

That's a valid distinction. However, it's usually lost on the bulk of
the buying public, which really doesn't care if the OS is proprietary
or open source.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl(a)cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
From: ZnU on 7 Aug 2010 18:11
In article <H2k7o.3910$EF1.1599(a)newsfe14.iad>,
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-7283CB.14165507082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET...
> > In article <08sq56l9gi1u4hsrbecr24kadau1n7ph0i(a)4ax.com>,
> > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 05:51:44 -0400, in
> >> <znu-1D9F45.05514407082010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU
> >> <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <050820101301232886%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>,
> >> > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <lloydparsons-2C9285.10404005082010(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd
> >> >> Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > And for all the complaints about how good/bad AT&T is,
> >> >> > there has been much conjecture that if any other provider had been
> >> >> > given
> >> >> > the iPhone exclusive, they would have had the same problems that
> >> >> > AT&T
> >> >> > has had with the useage patterns.
> >> >>
> >> >> except that with the explosion of android phones, you don't see very
> >> >> many complaints about verizon, yet you still see complaints about
> >> >> at&t.
> >> >
> >> >This is not especially meaningful. The iPhone has faced _far_ more
> >> >scrutiny than the confused mess of Android phones various carriers are
> >> >now selling.
> >>
> >> I respectfully disagree -- Android has received enormous scrutiny.
> >
> > Antennagate demonstrates _very_ clearly that Apple is not remotely held
> > to the same standard as other industry participants. It is simply
> > unimaginable that any such controversy could have arisen with respect to
> > any other specific handset model.
>
>
> Perhaps, but I see it as a popularity issue, coupled with the dearth of
> models. If Nokia or Motorola had a "radical new" antenna design on one of
> their phones with a similar problem, it'd be one model of dozens. Other
> than Apple continuing to sell "last year's model" along with the iPhone du
> jour, the iPhone 4 is THE Apple phone, meaning if the device has an alleged
> problem, the "entire line" has an alleged problem. If there was an iPhone
> Classic, iPhone Nano, iPhone Shuffle, etc., I think this would be less of a
> big deal.

Yes, this is absolutely part of why individual Apple devices get more
scrutiny. But they _do_ get more scrutiny. So you can't just say that
since people make a big deal out of these things with Apple devices, but
not with other devices, other devices must not ever have any issues.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: ZnU on 7 Aug 2010 18:17
In article <0fir569ng2c2k6seobom2mnubitl9jok38(a)4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl(a)cruzio.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:02:13 -0400, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

> >If you look at the application sales estimates, it's not
> >clear that users even understand Android as a platform;
>
> I don't see the connection. If app sales were higher, it would not
> necessarily create a better understanding of the OS by the users.

I'm speculating that the cause/effect relationship runs in the _other_
direction. That users aren't buying Android apps in large numbers
because many don't understand that a) their phones can actually run apps
and this is useful and that b) they'll be able to take their apps with
them to other Android phones in the future.

[snip]

> >I suspect many are just buying Android phones as more capable
> >'feature' phones.
>
> Maybe. I suggest you consider brand loyalty. I don't mean Apple iOS
> versus Android brand loyalty. I mean AT&T versus Verizon. It's been
> demonstrated that there's little loyalty to AT&T and that a large
> chunk of iPhone users would move to Verizon if they offered an
> Verizon iPhone. Keep your eye on the churn rate to see who's has the
> most loyal customers. You might find these articles enlightening:
> <http://voice-quality.tmcnet.com/topics/phone-service/articles/93062-a
> tt-churn -rate-offers-lesson.htm>
> <http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/11152.html>

I agree that Verizon availability is another major reason why Android
phones as selling well. This does not really appear to be related to
the point I was making. I mean, except to the extent that it's another
factor undermining attempts by some people to pretend Android is winning
because it's better or because consumers value 'software freedom' or
something.

> >Android might be more properly thought of as a common open source
> >codebase that handset vendors can draw on when building their phones
> >than as a mobile platform to be directly compared to Apple's or RIM's.
>
> That's a valid distinction. However, it's usually lost on the bulk of
> the buying public, which really doesn't care if the OS is proprietary
> or open source.

I'm not saying they should. I'm discussing the issue of whether Android
phones should all be counted in the same pool merely because vendors are
drawing on the same OSS codebase.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: -hh on 8 Aug 2010 07:44
Jeff Liebermann <je...(a)cruzio.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >But if the net result is that the signal can still be received & used,
> >a "so what?" applies.
>
> Ok, good point.  If the iPhone 4 is radically more sensitive in both
> field strength sensitivity (uV/meter) and receiver sensitivity (-dBm
> at a reference bit error rate such as 1 part in 10^6), then a
> conventional receiver, the deterioration would not be as detrimental.

Thanks for seeing my point.

> However, the numbers don't work.  The state of the art for GaAS FET
> front end designs are fairly uniform in the industry.  At worst, the
> spread in receiver sensitivities might be perhaps 3dB.  The iPhone 4
> antenna is also about 3 times as large as the typical cell phone
> antenna, offering at best another 2dB of gain.  That's 5dB at best,
> out of the 16dB that can be accounted for by front end sensitivity and
> antenna gain.  The other 11dB is coming from somewhere.  Where?

I'm not sure either. Simplistically, this is why we need to have all
the numbers, not just some of them.

For example, perhaps they're not using GaAS, but perhaps GaN. I've
been experiencing increased leadtimes on GaN availability, so its
demand is up, despite its current cost.


> >Then that's where our positions differ.   Granted, it would be nice
> >(and a lot easier) if a lot of the external factors could be ignored,
> >but reality is rarely so kind.
>
> They can be ignored for the simple reason that they are the same with
> and without the death grip.

Notionally, consider an antenna which is buried within a thick
insulating shell or coating. The shell protects it from any
significant amount of random 'death grip' losses, but the reason why
is partly because it is continuously in a 'death grip' from the
coating, so its basic reception level is degraded versus an exposed
antenna.

How is your test method accounting for this situation?


> >> Have you considered WHY the iPhone 4 is apparently more sensitive than
> >> the others?  
>
> >Which "more sensitive" performance metric are you referring to?
>
> Users are reporting that the iPhone 4 is able to make calls in areas
> where their former 3G or 3GS cannot make calls.  In this case, more
> sensitive means better field strength sensitivity (mostly a function
> of the larger antenna), and better receiver front end sensitivity.  My
> contention is that this apparently dramatic improvement is partially
> caused by a regenerative receiver front end.  As before, this is a
> guess(tm) mostly because none of my friends will let me dive into the
> guts of their shinny new iPhone 4.

Understood, with the caveat being 'partially' caused. My point is
that its a bit risky to claim an overall conclusion without at least
knowing where 'the rest' is coming from, since we may be completely
overlooking an entire phenomenology...perhaps as much as 11dB :-)


> >> Most likely, it's the combination of a larger physical
> >> antenna (about 2/3 the circumference of the iPhone 4), and general
> >> improvements in receiver front end design.
>
> >Both of which would make the "base" sensitivity of the system better
> >(ie, able to pull in a weaker signal).
>
> Yep.  If true, then my by guess(tm), it will be at best 5dB better
> than a generic cell phone.  What will the other 11dB do to the
> connection?

Obviously, when all of the conditional requirements stack, it will
manifest itself as a problem...but for the (notionally) vast majority
of the time, the conditional requirements don't stack, so the consumer
gets the benefit with zero apparent downside.


> >That doesn't yet directly address my point, which was that a "more
> >sensitive" system may still end up having a net better performance
> >even if it is more easily degraded.
>
> Oh, I'll agree with your point.  The problem is that the improvements
> offered by this improved receive performance isn't sufficient to make
> the iPhone 4 even close to that of a commodity cell phones.

> >Agreed on the math ... but:
>
> >> [...] For example, if I add 100dB to each number:
>
> >...but:   my point is that this "100dB" isn't necessarily the exact
> >same value for the two transceivers, and that's a factor that can
> >swamp the 16dB differences in attenuation losses into irrelevance.
>
> Wrong.  It cannot "swamp", negate, or compensate for anything.

Yet you just agreed that there could be a difference in base
sensitivity present.


My point is that the assessment at the system's net performance level
requires insight both into potential attenuation losses as well as its
basic sensitivity.


> >That's a third level beyond than what I was trying to refer to.
>
> Agreed, but it's important.  If AT&t extends the dropout time before
> the signal gets lost, the effects of the "hand on antenna" problem is
> effectively hidden and conceivably no longer a real problem.  What
> would happen is that users would be constantly asking for repeats, and
> dropouts would be dramatically reduced.  This might also explain why
> some users claim they don't get any dropouts as a result of the "death
> grip".  It's easy enough to measure.  I'll give it a try and see what
> happens.

Thanks. It would be nice to be able to ignore this from the holistic
system design perspective, but it is a real-world factor ... and it
would be quite interesting IMO if we were to find that AT&T were using
different values based upon specific makes/models of phones (ie, has
clearly taken extra steps to accommodate the iPhone4): then, you're
really be onto something significant.



-hh
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks