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: DevilsPGD on 10 Aug 2010 19:12 In message <50f3669fnag7pkao77g46mn9u9hb1ru1u0(a)4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:12:54 -0600, in ><4c61b2c6$0$89384$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>, Ted Nelson <ted(a)rnelson.org> >wrote: > >>In article <79k06690kha6mr495vs4glaor6n2pfghlf(a)4ax.com>, >> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> >it means they put a plastic case around the device "before" it was >>> >shipped, apple didn't so it requires a case, learn the difference. >>> >>> The case on the device is similar to the one on the iPhone 4. >>> The only relevant difference is in the antenna placement. >>> Learn the differences and the similarities. >> >>what smartphone ships "in the raw" like the iphone 4? > >All of them. If he's talking about bare antennas, iPhone 4 is the only one doing this. If you're talking about what smartphones ship without a case, then note that several BlackBerry smartphones include a sleeve or pouch in the box.
From: ed on 10 Aug 2010 19:20 On Aug 10, 3:54 pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > At 10 Aug 2010 08:19:38 -0700 John Navas wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:40:02 -0400, in > > <g5d8o.4362$EF1.2...(a)newsfe14.iad>, Todd Allcock > > <eleccon...(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. > > Yes, _if_ you purchased data. There was no mandatory data add-on, > however, so users could opt to use their smartphone on WiFi only, or as > an 'unconnected' PDA with integrated phone. > > AT&T started a trend with the iPhone that now makes mandatory data plans > a de facto standard on all carriers. Verizon has even expanded it to > certain dumbphones, requiring a $10/month data plan on select feature > phones. verizon, iirc, required a data plan for blackberries before the iphone- winmo devices on verizon started requiring data around the time of the iphone.
From: John Navas on 10 Aug 2010 20:41 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:54:35 -0400, in <j%k8o.10292$1F6.5217(a)newsfe01.iad>, Todd Allcock <elecconnec(a)AnoOspamL.com> wrote: >At 10 Aug 2010 08:19:38 -0700 John Navas wrote: >> I seem to recall that AT&T required a higher cost "smartphone" plan for >> Blackberries and other smartphones. > >Yes, _if_ you purchased data. There was no mandatory data add-on, >however, so users could opt to use their smartphone on WiFi only, or as >an 'unconnected' PDA with integrated phone. > >AT&T started a trend with the iPhone that now makes mandatory data plans >a de facto standard on all carriers. Verizon has even expanded it to >certain dumbphones, requiring a $10/month data plan on select feature >phones. As I recall a smartphone plan was more expensive than a dumbphone plan, which is all I was saying. How is the extra cost is labeled is interesting, but doesn't make any less an extra cost. What AT&T did with the iPhone was extend the concept (IMHO at least). -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: KDT on 10 Aug 2010 20:44 On Aug 5, 7:52 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:21:34 -0500, in > <lloydparsons-CEA3F6.15213405082...(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd Parsons > > > > <lloydpars...(a)mac.com> wrote: > >In article <050820101307103677%nos...(a)nospam.invalid>, > > nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >> In article <lloydparsons-E4398D.15041505082...(a)idisk.mac.com>, Lloyd > >> Parsons <lloydpars...(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. > > >> > In the grand scheme of things, that explosion is not a big one. The > >> > numbers are still pretty low. > > >> although there are a lot more iphones than android devices, android is > >> selling a *lot* of devices and there aren't very many problems on > >> verizon, sprint or t-mobile. with the iphone, at&t had problems from > >> day one. > > >That is true, and the conjecture was that back then, any provider would > >have had a horrible time dealing with it. Of course, it should be > >better now, and from reports I see, it is in many parts of the country, > >but not all. > > >As to Android, yes they are selling lots these days, but the numbers are > >still small compared to the number of active iPhones, > > Depends on your definition of "small" -- 8.7 million Android handsets > here in the U.S. compared with 10.7 million iPhones according to > Quantcast. > > >and it is spread > >among providers. > > True, but Android phones on AT&T <http://goo.gl/EyTr> aren't generating > complaints the way iPhone has and still is. > > -- > John > > "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." > [Wetherns Law of Suspended Judgement] Who is actually buying an Android device on AT&T? The Motorala devices haven't exactly been breaking records.
From: John Navas on 10 Aug 2010 20:45
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:12:45 -0700, in <r6n366lo0472ig5l466pj333096lv61ptj(a)4ax.com>, DevilsPGD <Still-Just-A-Rat-In-A-Cage(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >In message <50f3669fnag7pkao77g46mn9u9hb1ru1u0(a)4ax.com> John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> was claimed to have wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:12:54 -0600, in >><4c61b2c6$0$89384$815e3792(a)news.qwest.net>, Ted Nelson <ted(a)rnelson.org> >>wrote: >> >>>In article <79k06690kha6mr495vs4glaor6n2pfghlf(a)4ax.com>, >>> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >it means they put a plastic case around the device "before" it was >>>> >shipped, apple didn't so it requires a case, learn the difference. >>>> >>>> The case on the device is similar to the one on the iPhone 4. >>>> The only relevant difference is in the antenna placement. >>>> Learn the differences and the similarities. >>> >>>what smartphone ships "in the raw" like the iphone 4? >> >>All of them. > >If he's talking about bare antennas, iPhone 4 is the only one doing >this. He was talking "case", not external antenna, but there were in fact many phones with external antennas, starting with the iconic Motorola brick phone, and including my beloved Ericsson T39m, and none of them had a similar issue to the iPhone with touching the antenna, so the basic argument is meaningless regardless. -- John "Assumption is the mother of all screw ups." [Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement] |