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: SMS on 10 Aug 2010 11:44 On 10/08/10 2:58 AM, ed wrote: > On Aug 10, 2:29 am, Sandman<m...(a)sandman.net> wrote: >> On 2010-08-10 08:28:06 +0200, ZnU said: >>> I also have a 3G iPad and haven't activated service yet; when I'm in my >>> usual routine, I have WiFi 99% of the time I'd want Internet access on >>> the iPad. But if I'm going out of town or I'm on-set for a couple of >>> weeks (we do video production work), _then_ it becomes really useful. >>> That's why the fact that the plans are month-to-month is so nice. >> >> I just think your (as in, all you americans, not you specifically) >> cellular plans are fucked up. I pay $80/month (VAT included) for >> flatrate data and flatrate calls for my plan and twin card that share >> the same flatrate data plan is included in the price, and I just went >> to my providers home page and clicked "order micro-sim" and it was >> posted to me free of charge as my twin card. > > unlimited (voice, data, txt) plans in the u.s. currently start in the > $45-$50 range. This is true, but there are definite limitations on those low cost voice/data/text plans. No tethering, a very limited selection of handsets, and limited coverage.
From: Jeff Liebermann on 10 Aug 2010 12:03 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:37:01 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >one person i know had a little bit of a problem (he lives in a >weak signal area), so he took it back and apple gave him a new one >which is much better. it's hard to say why but maybe there's a >manufacturing tolerance issue, or maybe just a bad batch. either way, >he no longer has an issue with it. Short answer... busy today. The above incident indicates either a quality control problem or, according to my speculation, a regenerative or oscillatory receiver front end. Unless there are component problems, the receiver sensitivities across a production lot should be nearly identical or at least within a few dB of nominal. Erratic changes in receiver sensitivity (and therefore field strength sensitivity) is a typical symptom of a regenerative front end RF amplifier. My guess(tm) is that touching the antenna kills the oscillation, and with it, the increased sensitivity produced by regeneration. What will be interesting is if Apple "fixes" this suspected regeneration, the receiver sensitivity will drop, along with the superior (perceived) receiver performance. Predictions of doom, disaster, end of civilization, will have to wait until later... -- 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 10 Aug 2010 12:32 In article <2c66697a-764a-4e43-840b-84cd8e43d1b9(a)v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, ed <news(a)atwistedweb.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 2:29�am, Sandman <m...(a)sandman.net> wrote: > > On 2010-08-10 08:28:06 +0200, ZnU said: > > > I also have a 3G iPad and haven't activated service yet; when I'm in my > > > usual routine, I have WiFi 99% of the time I'd want Internet access on > > > the iPad. But if I'm going out of town or I'm on-set for a couple of > > > weeks (we do video production work), _then_ it becomes really useful. > > > That's why the fact that the plans are month-to-month is so nice. > > > > I just think your (as in, all you americans, not you specifically) > > cellular plans are fucked up. I pay $80/month (VAT included) for > > flatrate data and flatrate calls for my plan and twin card that share > > the same flatrate data plan is included in the price, and I just went > > to my providers home page and clicked "order micro-sim" and it was > > posted to me free of charge as my twin card. > > unlimited (voice, data, txt) plans in the u.s. currently start in the > $45-$50 range. MetroPCS has plans in that range, but 1) they only have coverage in major cities and 2) they're on CDMA, which limits device choice. > on att, the ipad data plans were $30 unlimited when they existed ($25 > for 2 gigs now); no shared extra-card plans, but unlimited data plans > on other carriers start at about $40 (though i don't think anyone > else has a micro sim at this point). so you're not really talking > about a whole lot of difference in cost when it comes to the actual > plans themselves. Except that an AT&T smartphone plan with 2 GB of data and unlimited talk/text is going to be on the order of $115. And I bet Sandman's plan supports tethering -- add another $20. Plus Sandman's plan works with multiple devices, so add another $25 for the iPad plan. Basically, to get an iPhone + iPad + tethered laptop online via AT&T will cost you $160/month. Plus probably, with a plan that expensive, another $20 in taxes and fees. And you're _still_ limited to 2 GB of data for the phone and laptop and a separate 2 GB for the iPad before you start paying overages. Sprint is a _little_ cheaper, but not that much. They have an unlimited tax/text/data plan for $99 -- but tethering is an extra $30, and if you wanted to add a second data-only device like an iPad (not that the iPad works, because Sprint is CDMA) there's no reasonable way to do that -- you'd have to get a whole separate data-only plan for $60/month for 5 GB. So Sprint ends of actually being $190/month -- well over $200 with taxes and fees. So basically, prices are _twice_ as high in the US, _and_ you still get less (capped data), _and_ you have to navigate around the fact that there are three different incompatible standards here (AT&T's GSM on normal frequencies, T-Mobile's GSM on quirky frequencies, and Sprint and Version on CDMA.) I would say "fucked up" is, in fact, a pretty good description of the US cellular market. -- "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 10 Aug 2010 12:41 In article <iLb8o.67310$0A5.37856(a)newsfe22.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > At 09 Aug 2010 22:29:53 -0400 ZnU wrote: > > In article <164u561i94um3buf9ptjp2ooa2ekmj6e3i(a)4ax.com>, > > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > >This is a battle for the future of mobile computing. ... > > > > > > It's a battle for the mobile phone market. > > > The iPad market is a different market and battle. > > > If you disagree, try making a phone call with an iPad, > > > and let me know how well it's "working for you". ;) > > > > The iPad is arguably a different market. I would say it was definitely > a > > different market, except that it's possible to 'universal' apps. > > > > The iPod Touch is absolutely _not_ a different market in any meaningful > > sense, despite the number of people who'd like to frame it that way to > > make Android look better. > > > I think you're looking at "market" from the manufacturer's or > developer's perspective rather than consumer's- The iPad, Touch, and > iPhone are from completely different consumer markets: the iPhone is > a phone with an iPod/game machine/mobile computurish-thing built in, > and the Touch is an iPod. The iPhone user experience is predicated on > ubiquitous connectivity, whereas the iPod is based on casual > part-time connectivity. I'd buy that, but I personally know at least a couple of people who want iPhones, but have purchased iPod Touches to get similar functionality without having to switch to AT&T and/or sign two year contracts. > And despite the statements by Jobs or anyone here, the iPad is in the > netbook market- a small,lightweight computer with a subset of "real' > laptop features. The irony, of course, is that most netbooks are no > longer in the netbook market- they're in the "crappy low-end laptop" > market. The iPad does compete with netbooks, and clearly isn't interchangeable, as far as consumers are concerned, with the iPod Touch or iPhone. However, we're discussing things at a _platform_ level here. The fact that apps are easily portable between all of these devices means a stronger developer community spanning these devices, which means more and better apps for all of them. And that's going to prove to be a pretty big deal in the long run. > From the perspective of the coding tools, there may be no real > difference, but consider the perspective of the app writer or user: if > the app requires accurate location info and continuous access to online > databases/servers, it's an "iPhone" or "iPad 3G" app rather than a > Touch/iPad WiFi app. Sure, but that's a minority of apps. > The devices might not be very different from a hardware perspective, but > user scenarios, use cases and their markets are completely different, > much like the "PDA" vs. "Smartphone" market- the former no longer exists > for all intents and purposes, despite most smartphones being a PDA with > one "extra" radio. > > It's sort of like desktops/laptops/netbooks- they're all compatible will > the same apps, use the same OSes, etc., but you'll likely find different > apps used on laptops* and netbooks* than desktops, at least outside of > the "core" apps like browsers and email clients. Err? That's even less true, especially these days. Even in the video production industry, which requires some very demanding apps laptops are the norm -- and are used to run those very demanding apps on a day to day basis, with only specific _particularly_ demanding parts of workflows being handled on towers. > [*assuming the laptop is actually used as a mobile computer, and not > living on a kitchen counter or bedroom desk 100% of the time!] -- "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: Lloyd Parsons on 10 Aug 2010 12:53
In article <ber2665vb0124vecjpepn9ceve5sks5mlb(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:40:02 -0400, in > <g5d8o.4362$EF1.2031(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock > <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > > >... (Keep in > >mind pre-iPhone, no one in the US had tied mandatory data plans to phone > >sales. Even Blackberries- essentially worthless without ubiquitous data- > >didn't require data plans yet!) > > I seem to recall that AT&T required a higher cost "smartphone" plan for > Blackberries and other smartphones. As did all the others. -- Lloyd |