tortoise
Sep 20, 02:40 PM
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Johnf1285
Mar 23, 04:37 PM
Let me see... wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya... high unemployment in the USA. Cost of energy is killing the average guy in the pocketbook. I know... lets spend our time getting those terrible DUI apps out of the app store... that way we can tell our Constituents what a great job we are doing representing them in Washington.
PS
Don't forget to vote (them out).
^ Agreed. While this is a gray area indeed, these politicians really have much bigger fish to fry.
PS
Don't forget to vote (them out).
^ Agreed. While this is a gray area indeed, these politicians really have much bigger fish to fry.
akadmon
Sep 4, 11:03 PM
Merom MBPs of course :D
I second this emoticon!
If anyone at Apple HQs is listening, please give us a revved up/priced down MBP. Merom + 160 GB/7200 rpm hdd at $1999 would be sweet. I don't care to watch movies on anything less than a 50" screen, and I sure as hell am not moved to tears by an 8GB nano that is priced at 75% of a regular iPod. C'mon Apple, it's not too late!
I second this emoticon!
If anyone at Apple HQs is listening, please give us a revved up/priced down MBP. Merom + 160 GB/7200 rpm hdd at $1999 would be sweet. I don't care to watch movies on anything less than a 50" screen, and I sure as hell am not moved to tears by an 8GB nano that is priced at 75% of a regular iPod. C'mon Apple, it's not too late!
iScott428
Mar 29, 12:54 PM
I think he was referring to the older versions of Office that had weird MDI interfaces for Word and Excel, so that it only displayed one document at a time, unless you explicitly forced two separate instances of the application to run at the same time.
That is exactly what I was referring to.
That is exactly what I was referring to.
sixth
Aug 28, 02:25 PM
MY cat told ME directly....MBP's will be upgraded tommorrow...she knows all...haha
Ravich
May 3, 05:05 PM
macpro dead in 2 years...my prediction:mad:
Why would Apple do that?
Why would Apple do that?
milo
Aug 28, 03:20 PM
There's no chance apple is releasing MBP's tomorrow. There are too many things pointing towards early/mid-Sept.
There's no question that apple will not *ship* merom machines tomorrow. But there's nothing stopping them from making the announcement and taking preorders.
There's no question that apple will not *ship* merom machines tomorrow. But there's nothing stopping them from making the announcement and taking preorders.
AAPLaday
Apr 30, 04:06 PM
Hoping for a matte iMac option :D
bitfactory
Oct 27, 09:27 AM
I'm a Green Peace supporter, but with Bush in the Whitehouse, don't they have bigger fish to fry?
It took almost 20 posts before GWB was mentioned. It seems the attention span of some folks is actually getting longer.
Now back on point, please.
The only reason GP is targeting Apple is because they think they actually have a shot at getting them to do something, and once Apple moves in response to GP, then they have ammo to go after the others.
GP is a dead movement - we need a fair, equitable organization to take its place.
It took almost 20 posts before GWB was mentioned. It seems the attention span of some folks is actually getting longer.
Now back on point, please.
The only reason GP is targeting Apple is because they think they actually have a shot at getting them to do something, and once Apple moves in response to GP, then they have ammo to go after the others.
GP is a dead movement - we need a fair, equitable organization to take its place.
age234
Sep 5, 04:15 PM
I really hope Apple comes out with a new app for this, because video in iTunes completely sucks.
joeshell383
Sep 26, 09:36 AM
Do any of you whiners realize that Verizon is trying to start their own music service to compete with an "iTunes + iPhone". Go to the Verizon Wireless website and click on Call My Music. Cingular and T-Mobile USA have no such service.
iMacZealot
Sep 20, 08:00 PM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
I find a few things wrong with this:
1) I don't think EU chose GSM because it was European and not American --- according to Wikipedia, GSM publicly came out in 1990 and CDMA (or IS-95) in 1996.
2) I think it's hard to compare IS-95 and GSM. It's comparing apples to oranges. Sure, there are some things better about them, but CDMA and TDMA are completely different techniques and hard to compare.
3) When you're talking about CDMA being used in future technologies in Europe, if you mean UMTS, that's not CDMA. It's the next generation GSM 3G technology, but uses wideband CDMA or WCDMA in the process. It is considered GSM technology.
4) If you're choosing your new cellular provider based on whether they use CDMA or GSM, that's sad because you're going to get a phone that makes calls anyway. The rest, in my opinion, differs between what the execs at T-Cingizon PCS are thinking.
mr.steevo
Apr 20, 09:58 AM
Ask Josh Harris what he thinks of this and he'll tell you we're right on track with losing all anonymity due to technology.
Buckle up.
Buckle up.
Changen
Apr 4, 12:39 PM
Damn, well I can tell you most of the security guards at otay ranch are unarmed but there are a handful of guys that do carry. Im surprised I just heard about this living 2 minutes from the mall.
Eraserhead
Nov 13, 05:16 PM
Apple is the copyright holder of those images and they provide the right to use those images in Applications running on macs via the API on a Mac running OS X.
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:36 PM
I never ONCE claimed you dont have GSM carriers.
the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?
________________________________________
I claimed (and maintain) that CDMA is crap for consumer choice. and what you pay for calls is irrelevant. they dont charge you more/less because of it being CDMA/GSM/analogue/a tin on a string.
Then why do you hate CDMA so much? There are ways of unlocking CDMA phones and using them on other networks.
And the reason why I talked about international roaming rates was because you said in a nutshell that we couldn't bring our phone to another country.
the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?
________________________________________
I claimed (and maintain) that CDMA is crap for consumer choice. and what you pay for calls is irrelevant. they dont charge you more/less because of it being CDMA/GSM/analogue/a tin on a string.
Then why do you hate CDMA so much? There are ways of unlocking CDMA phones and using them on other networks.
And the reason why I talked about international roaming rates was because you said in a nutshell that we couldn't bring our phone to another country.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 10, 09:18 PM
Flame me if you must, but what is the sense in having multiple cores if the software running on it doesn't take advantage of it? Same thing with advertising the new chips as being 64 bit. That's great, but I don't have anything (not in beta) that can use it.
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
Apple themselves have never been great at making use of multiple processors (in tandem), so I'm not getting how 4, 8, 32 cores makes much difference?
mcrain
Apr 20, 08:54 AM
Always makes me lol to see someone attribute slavery to the "right". The mysteries of 7th grade history class, revealed for you:
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
zweigand
Apr 25, 12:12 AM
Fun and games till it's not.
twlott
Mar 29, 02:56 PM
Microsoft partnered with Nokia out of desperation. Not because there products are going to be any good.
lessthandmb
Aug 28, 03:13 PM
There's no chance apple is releasing MBP's tomorrow. There are too many things pointing towards early/mid-Sept.
OllyW
Mar 30, 12:11 PM
Just for those that insist Microsoft only ever uses the term 'program' . XP dates back to 2001.
Spoilsport.
Fancy bringing up facts to ruin their argument. :D
Spoilsport.
Fancy bringing up facts to ruin their argument. :D
afd
Apr 11, 08:02 AM
Well, you CAN send the same audio to every device in your house, as long as the audio originates on your Mac (which includes simply plugging in any iOS device or iPod into your Mac).
How? Not unless I buy airfoil?
How? Not unless I buy airfoil?
OllyW
Apr 19, 01:31 PM
Wow. That does look like an early Galaxy S (dark chrome bezel to boot!). Interesting find.
Apple copied the front facing camera 3 years later. :D
Apple copied the front facing camera 3 years later. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment