NEWS: Apple sued over hot iPad shutdowns
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security of wireless networks
Next: NEWS: Security shortcomings in WPA2 that threaten security ofwireless networks
From: nospam on 9 Aug 2010 12:43 In article <4c602cf3$0$22173$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > > bullshit. the earliest date is *not* known. nobody outside of apple and > > at&t knows when the exclusive ends or when a verizon/sprint/t-mobile > > iphone will appear. > > While a Verizon iPhone can't be _sold_ prior to the expiration of the > end of exclusivity (which is widely believed to be in 2011), it could > certainly be advertised (which is pointed out in that article). what is widely believed is not necessarily what it is. as i said, nobody outside of apple and at&t know exactly what the deal is and depending on what you read, the exclusive is anywhere from 2-5 years. it could also have been renegotiated during that time (there's at least one rumour of that). at some point it will end (at&t has said as much) but nobody knows when that will be. however, the rumours are definitely heating up, so something's afoot. > The meteoric rise in sales of Android phones on other carriers is no > doubt of great concern to Apple, and they will not wait any longer than > absolutely necessary to launch iPhones on other carriers (especially > Verizon since and AT&T/Verizon Duopoly is emerging in wireless as most > growth in sales is on AT&T and Verizon). i'm sure apple will be happy to include sprint and t-mobile users too, as well as sprint and t-mobile will be happy to carry it. there's little point in doing verizon and not doing sprint (same radio). > Will Verizon's data network crumble under the crush of iPhone data like > AT&T's did? it's handling android just fine, and by some reports, android users use *more* data than iphone users. what will be very interesting is how many at&t customers switch away from at&t once the iphone goes multi-carrier.
From: John Navas on 9 Aug 2010 12:55 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:30:07 -0700, in <4c602cf3$0$22173$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 09/08/10 8:29 AM, nospam wrote: > ><snip> > >> bullshit. the earliest date is *not* known. nobody outside of apple and >> at&t knows when the exclusive ends or when a verizon/sprint/t-mobile >> iphone will appear. > >While a Verizon iPhone can't be _sold_ prior to the expiration of the >end of exclusivity (which is widely believed to be in 2011), it could >certainly be advertised (which is pointed out in that article). Probably not without agreement by AT&T, which would seem unlikely. >The meteoric rise in sales of Android phones on other carriers is no >doubt of great concern to Apple, and they will not wait any longer than >absolutely necessary to launch iPhones on other carriers (especially >Verizon since and AT&T/Verizon Duopoly is emerging in wireless as most >growth in sales is on AT&T and Verizon). > >Will Verizon's data network crumble under the crush of iPhone data like >AT&T's did? Despite some well-publicized grumbling due to temporary capacity issues, AT&T's didn't actually "crumble". -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: John Navas on 9 Aug 2010 12:56 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 11:28:04 -0500, in <93b066d756k05l3th73jes32vdklncbueg(a)4ax.com>, Kumar P. <news(a)news.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:54:36 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:48:00 -0500, in >><jj8066tpv2pkkiglub1ku543ebdbqp5c4s(a)4ax.com>, Kumar P. >><news(a)news.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:02:17 -0700, John Navas >>><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Having actually been in the EDA tool business (in top management of one >>>>major firm and as a consultant to another), I can tell you the good EDA >>>>tools work very well indeed, cutting months from both design and testing >>>>cycles, although the best such tools are priced well beyond the budgets >>>>and skills of smaller players, which tends to increase the advantage of >>>>the biggest players. Have you personally used them? >>> >>>Why ask someone else if they've personally used those tools when you >>>haven't used them yourself? Hint: top management and consultants >>>aren't sitting down to use design tools, assuming those claims are >>>true. >> >>Your guess is incorrect. I'm both qualified and experienced in those >>tools. > >So you say. Why am I not surprised. Perhaps because you checked the public record? ;) -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: Jeff Liebermann on 9 Aug 2010 13:28 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:02:17 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >Having actually been in the EDA tool business (in top management of one >major firm and as a consultant to another), I can tell you the good EDA >tools work very well indeed, cutting months from both design and testing >cycles, although the best such tools are priced well beyond the budgets >and skills of smaller players, which tends to increase the advantage of >the biggest players. Have you personally used them? Nope. I never used much beyond the ancient Orcad, Applicon PCB, and some 3D mech stuff in the early 1980's. What I have done is manually cleaned up the mess created by various tools, usually by recommending changes to the RF layout, gain distribution, component selection, grounding, shielding, and all the details that EDA tools usually failed to consider properly. Most recently, that was about 10 years ago, so I'm totally obsolete and uninformed about todays technology. In most cases, my involvement was after the schedule was blown several times, and the RF problems were still there. I was dragged in to see if I could find anything the designers had missed. There was never any single point of failure or smoking gun. It was always a small error, repeated hundreds of times. At the time, the economy was booming, and companies were having problems finding qualified people. So, someone sold them on the idea that if equipped with the proper computah and software, a recent trade skool graduate or H1B import could do the job. As long as the RF engineers worked with the PCB design group, it actually worked quite well. Where the communications was lacking, it failed, because the RF engineer was effectively training the PCB designer. I suppose that things are much different today and that all the problems of the past 10 years have magically evaporated through the introduction of additional computer horsepower and elegant software. If asked to do the same manual cleanup job today, I would have serious difficulties as I'm unfamiliar with the tools. Also, my batting average at finding problems was not so wonderful. About half the time, I couldn't find anything wrong. The design and layout were prefect, but it didn't work. >>What has changed since I was playing designer is the elimination of >>the prototype cycle. > >Design and testing cycles have also been greatly shortened. Sure. Most complex chip makers supply several "reference design" packages that are ready to use by their customers. Intel pioneered that where they supplied complete motherboard schematics, that conveniently used only Intel chips, to vendors. It wasn't too surprising that many of the motherboards were exactly the same as the reference design. That works fairly well until the board designer has to consider timing skew, line impedance matching, termination, RFI/EMI, and other RF related issues. The reference design didn't consider these, turning transmission lines into antennas. Presumably, todays software has fixed all this. Testing certainly has improved with the almost universal introduction of ATE systems and throw away electronics. It often doesn't pay to repair boards on the production line, so they just get scrapped. That generates a tremendous incentive to get it right the first time and to 100% test tape and reel components, but also causes some spectacular problems if something is overlooked. >>My guess(tm) is without these >>tools, the 2 year iPhone cycle would have been more like 2.5 years. > >The advantage is actually considerably greater than that at major firms >like Motorola and Nokia. I wouldn't know as I've never worked directly for a large cell phone manufacturer. The big advantage of eliminating the prototype cycle is that it is now possible to produce dozens of design and package mutations with just a few keystrokes. I've seen a pile of similar, but not identical prototypes on the table for management to select the winner. I've also seen shotgun engineering, where several mutations of the design are explored simultaneously. This is especially useful when testing alternative implementations and component selection. The prototype cycle may have been eliminated, but it's been replaced by the design selection cycle. >>If >>the design cycle is only 2 weeks long, what are they doing for the >>rest of the time. Optimization, cost cutting, bug fixing, meetings, >>production jigs and fixtures, documentation, FCC type certification, >>various safety approvals, packaging, distribution, warehousing, etc. > >The best firms have largely eliminated such waste. Have you worked at >any of them? Nope. I work for much smaller companies. I don't consider the items I mentioned to be waste. While a large company may have the resources to deal with all of these internally, a small company will need to contract with various vendors for such things. For example, FCC type certification pre-test are usually performed in house, but the actual test is done at an FCC contract lab. >>Incidentally, Apple ordered a mess of CDMA Snapdragon chips from >>Qualcomm. Bring on the Verizon iPhone. >><http://fonefrenzy.com/2010/08/08/apple-submits-cdma-chipset-orders-to-qualcomm-iphone-4-headed-to-verizon/> > >No need to traffic in rumors and speculation (that have been wildly >wrong up to now) -- the earliest date for that to happen is known and >not all that soon (not that I personally care much one way or the >other). Oh, you're no fun. Rumors, speculation, guessing, and conspiracy theories provide so much entertainment value. Were it not for these, I might be tempted to do something useful this week. <http://www.pcworld.com/article/202640/new_ipad_iphone_and_ipod_on_the_way_rating_the_rumors.html> Hmmm... I wonder why Apple found it necessary to leak all this info? Maybe it will cause a drop in Droid sales as buyers wait for the new Apple products? Incidentally, it seems that Steve Jobs may have been responsible for the decision to ship the iPhone 4 with a known antenna problem: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268004575417572159585144.html> It was Mr. Jobs, rather than Mr. Papermaster, who decided to move forward with the development of the phone even though the company was aware of the risks of the antenna design as much as a year ago, according to people familiar with the matter. -- 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: Jeff Liebermann on 9 Aug 2010 13:47
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:55:18 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>While a Verizon iPhone can't be _sold_ prior to the expiration of the >>end of exclusivity (which is widely believed to be in 2011), it could >>certainly be advertised (which is pointed out in that article). > >Probably not without agreement by AT&T, which would seem unlikely. The FCC does not allow RF devices to "be offered for sale" prior to type certification. However, it does allow the usual press releases, product announcements, data sheets, and trade show exhibits. It's just that the phone can't sold via any of these. No clue on the AT&T agreement. I'm not so sure that AT&T really wants to keep the current contract. That's because they're apparently paying Apple full retail $600 price for the phones, while selling them to customers for about $200. The current guess by iSuppli is $178 to produce a 3GS. A two year contract term, with mandatory options (i.e. data plan), will make up the difference, but I'm sure they're not thrilled. If I were Apple, I would offer AT&T a continued exclusive at an even higher price for the iPhone 4, or a major price break if Apple were allowed to sell it to the other vendors. Either way, Apple wins, and AT&T just sits there. -- 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 |