Leoff
Sep 26, 08:07 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
bredlo
Apr 22, 11:39 AM
Love the style and miniaturization being tested out in the Air line. I'd never seriously consider one though unless they made a 15" version. I've been buying mid-size Mac laptops forever, going back to the 14" Wallstreet.
With my need for real estate (graphics and video editing) and limited use of optical drives and lots of I/O ports on a daily basis, that thin form factor and big screen would be just perfect for me.
Think it over Apple - thinner is better, but so is bigger!
With my need for real estate (graphics and video editing) and limited use of optical drives and lots of I/O ports on a daily basis, that thin form factor and big screen would be just perfect for me.
Think it over Apple - thinner is better, but so is bigger!
sinsin07
Mar 23, 06:14 PM
His counter point is supposed to be just as silly. That's his point.
No, that's your take on the point. My mileage varies.
No, that's your take on the point. My mileage varies.
Drew n macs
Mar 22, 02:51 PM
Quite a few people seem like they upgraded their MBP from 2010 MBP to 2011 mbp, Maybe just to have the latest product. Its possible that the imac will be released in 4-6 week time period and still no use for TB port...and finally when hard drives are released everyone will be outraged at the premium they will have to pay.
Popeye206
Apr 22, 08:55 AM
I do not think that is the plan. I believe the service will allow you to download your songs as well. It just gives you the option to go to the cloud if / when needed.
Exactly how I see it. An easy way to get at your media from devices like an iPhone or iPad when you're away from your main computer... Stream it, or download and keep local.
Exactly how I see it. An easy way to get at your media from devices like an iPhone or iPad when you're away from your main computer... Stream it, or download and keep local.
Counterfit
Apr 25, 03:10 AM
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc. Some random idiot woman in a minivan is just another person, why should I care about her? Because she is a human? I think not. I have no personal connection to that woman, I cannot feasibly or easily use her to advance myself, so why should I care what happens to her today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now? Logically, I shouldn't; emotionally and morally I should because she is another person, I think that is nonsensical.
-Don
I await the day that the person you run off the road is the one who can destroy your career and/or life.
-Don
I await the day that the person you run off the road is the one who can destroy your career and/or life.
Winni
Nov 14, 12:37 PM
Lets see how long they will stay away. There are buckets of DOLLARS waiting to be made in the App Store.
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
And to be honest, from a customer's perspective, I do hope that that the AppStore concept will fail. The AppStore as it is manifest a distribution monopoly for Apple, and monopolies -always- hurt the customer and prevent innovation. Imagine you could only obtain Mac application through the AppStore with similar rules: There wouldn't be a Firefox for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Safari. There wouldn't be an Adobe Lightroom for the Mac because it competes with Apple's Aperture. There wouldn't be any DVD or CD ripping software for the Mac because those apps could hurt Apple's iTunes sales. There probably wouldn't even be a Microsoft Office anymore because it competes with Apple's (inferior) iWork Suite. And, worst of all, all software authors would be FORCED to distribute their apps through the AppStore which would impose an Apple distribution tax on their software. As a result, they would all run away and write their apps for Windows instead. And Apple probably wouldn't even care because most of their customers are Internet-surfing consumers anyway who don't need much more than Safari, Mail and iLife to play with their photos and iPods.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:03 AM
There's no such thing as being safe driving 25 above the limit. I'm not the type of person to slow people down, because that's not my business, but I am the type of person to laugh at someone who whizzes past me, then I pass 5 miles later getting written up. Just wait until your first ticket or accident, you'll reconsider your driving habits.
Technically I was only 20 over the limit (I'm in Michigan). Also, radar detectors are a great thing:)
EDIT: @mrsir2009 - no that lady was doing 5mph under the speed limit in the passing lane, while not even passing. Traffic in the right side lane was passing her. She then proceeded to brake check me and travel under 55mph (the posted minimum in Michigan). More like wtf is wrong with her.
-Don
Technically I was only 20 over the limit (I'm in Michigan). Also, radar detectors are a great thing:)
EDIT: @mrsir2009 - no that lady was doing 5mph under the speed limit in the passing lane, while not even passing. Traffic in the right side lane was passing her. She then proceeded to brake check me and travel under 55mph (the posted minimum in Michigan). More like wtf is wrong with her.
-Don
robeddie
Apr 25, 02:05 PM
please get rid of the bezel. make it as small as possible.
please do not make it thinner. rather reduce footprint and keep battery life up.
Agreed. I've never understood why macs have such large bezel's. The 11" MBA is a notable offender in particular, since because the laptop is so small, the wide bezel looks even more immense compared to the rest of the laptop.
please do not make it thinner. rather reduce footprint and keep battery life up.
Agreed. I've never understood why macs have such large bezel's. The 11" MBA is a notable offender in particular, since because the laptop is so small, the wide bezel looks even more immense compared to the rest of the laptop.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 19, 02:31 PM
wow! impressive.
I guess people value convenience over quality. That's great for Apple. That confirms it will be a success.
For me I rather buy DVDs or wait for hi definition downloads, but I guess many people out there are satisfy with lower quality.
Can't wait for ITV tough.
Neither -- My download on my 4MB cable connection (real speed) took about 50 minutes AND the quality was outstanding on my 30" cinema display -- looked the same as DVD to me. No defects, no artifacts. Crisp Color.
I will order again. Way nicer than storing DVD's.
I guess people value convenience over quality. That's great for Apple. That confirms it will be a success.
For me I rather buy DVDs or wait for hi definition downloads, but I guess many people out there are satisfy with lower quality.
Can't wait for ITV tough.
Neither -- My download on my 4MB cable connection (real speed) took about 50 minutes AND the quality was outstanding on my 30" cinema display -- looked the same as DVD to me. No defects, no artifacts. Crisp Color.
I will order again. Way nicer than storing DVD's.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 10, 11:22 PM
I'm still taken aback by Sun doing what Intel's doing now, but doing it 8-10 years ago. What the heck happened to SUN?
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
Were you reading propaganda from Sun, or something from an unbiased source?
The P6 systems that you're talking about in the mid '90s were very similar in architecture to today's Intel systems.
The P6 systems had a shared FSB, so memory bandwidth was shared by the two processors. The SPARC systems usually had a crossbar switch, so that in theory each CPU had a private memory path. (The Woodcrest systems have an FSB per socket, to a shared memory controller.)
While the crossbar really shined when you had 32, 64 or more processors with many, many GiB of RAM - for a dual CPU system it really wasn't worth the cost.
Woodcrest, the PPC G5, and AMD aren't using crossbar memory controllers today....
jamesryanbell
Apr 25, 05:31 PM
Did I misread something?
It said a "case re-design", not a refresh of CPU, GPU, HDD, etc....
Why is everyone talking about a major technology refresh on a brand new MBP? My guess is that they opened up sweat shops in some third world country to file down the edges.... :-)
R
By the time the redesigned MBP is out, it'll be time for a massive major refresh.
It said a "case re-design", not a refresh of CPU, GPU, HDD, etc....
Why is everyone talking about a major technology refresh on a brand new MBP? My guess is that they opened up sweat shops in some third world country to file down the edges.... :-)
R
By the time the redesigned MBP is out, it'll be time for a massive major refresh.
aloshka
Apr 4, 11:56 AM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.
jakerichva
Apr 20, 01:59 PM
I don't usually read SLA's, but it's all right there, Page 1, Section 4, subsection b. And if don't want your iPhone to collect this data, turn off the feature.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone4.pdf
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdfAs you said, we've all agreed to it. Here is the appropriate paragraph for the iPad, for those who didn't bother to check the links
Section 4.b
(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services,
where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of
your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to
provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent
at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning o! the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non locationbased functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such
third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone4.pdf
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iPadSoftwareLicense.pdfAs you said, we've all agreed to it. Here is the appropriate paragraph for the iPad, for those who didn't bother to check the links
Section 4.b
(b) Location Data. Apple and its partners and licensees may provide certain services through your iPad that rely upon location information. To provide these services,
where available, Apple and its partners and licensees may transmit, collect, maintain, process and use your location data, including the real-time geographic location of
your iPad. The location data collected by Apple is collected in a form that does not personally identify you and may be used by Apple and its partners and licensees to
provide location-based products and services. By using any location-based services on your iPad, you agree and consent to Apple's and its partners' and licensees'
transmission, collection, maintenance, processing and use of your location data to provide location-based products and services. You may withdraw this consent
at any time by not using the location-based features or by turning o! the Location Services setting on your iPad. Not using these features will not impact the non locationbased functionality of your iPad. When using third party applications or services on the iPad that use or provide location data, you are subject to and should review such
third party's terms and privacy policy on use of location data by such third party applications or services.
BRLawyer
Sep 9, 11:48 AM
Well, since I have to suffer from your rabid fanboyishness as well (and it seems that I'm not the only one), then surely I can say something? I mean, it's not like your posts are invisible or something. Besides, if you post public messages on a public web-forum, do you REALLY have any grounds to complain if someone replies to your post?
Yes, I do, when such replies tell of personal offenses and nothing else...just read the rules of the forum. I was writing to Mr. Shaw, bashing PCs and praising Macs...nothing else.
The only remarks that may be close to "offenses" occur exactly when I have to reply to your stressed words that show a really angry and stupid degree of overreaction...relax, this is just a computer forum, and a MAC one for that matter.
Ah yeah, from the Apple Suisse website:
Le Mac le plus rapide jamais conçu.
Depuis l'annonce de la transition vers les nouveaux processeurs Intel, vous rêvez certainement d'un ordinateur de bureau professionnel offrant des performances hors pair.
Yes, I do, when such replies tell of personal offenses and nothing else...just read the rules of the forum. I was writing to Mr. Shaw, bashing PCs and praising Macs...nothing else.
The only remarks that may be close to "offenses" occur exactly when I have to reply to your stressed words that show a really angry and stupid degree of overreaction...relax, this is just a computer forum, and a MAC one for that matter.
Ah yeah, from the Apple Suisse website:
Le Mac le plus rapide jamais conçu.
Depuis l'annonce de la transition vers les nouveaux processeurs Intel, vous rêvez certainement d'un ordinateur de bureau professionnel offrant des performances hors pair.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 08:41 AM
Lame.
The only way the iPhone market even makes sense is via an Apple MVNO.
Since when does Apple NOT want to "control the whole widget"? I don't want Apple controlled by the nutjob mobile providers.
As much of an Apple fanboy as I am, I would never use Cingular. But beyond that, it signals that the Apple iPhone will be incredibly lame -- just another music phone (basically an Apple ROKR/SLVR), because that is pretty much all that Cingular trades in.
MVNOs are expensive to lease from other networks and the whole mess of plans makes it a pain the ass. Apple would be better off making something like a smartphone, which is what the iPhone most likely is.
And just because Motorola made ****** phones that ran iTunes on them doesn't mean that Cingular is the one that wants them. Moto was the one that ****ed it all up, not Cingular. If Cingular knew that the Apple phone was going to be great and not be totally crippled like the ROKR was - which was Apple's fault - then they would sell it regardless. Don't have such bias against Cingular. Verizon and Sprint aren't much better, either.
The only way the iPhone market even makes sense is via an Apple MVNO.
Since when does Apple NOT want to "control the whole widget"? I don't want Apple controlled by the nutjob mobile providers.
As much of an Apple fanboy as I am, I would never use Cingular. But beyond that, it signals that the Apple iPhone will be incredibly lame -- just another music phone (basically an Apple ROKR/SLVR), because that is pretty much all that Cingular trades in.
MVNOs are expensive to lease from other networks and the whole mess of plans makes it a pain the ass. Apple would be better off making something like a smartphone, which is what the iPhone most likely is.
And just because Motorola made ****** phones that ran iTunes on them doesn't mean that Cingular is the one that wants them. Moto was the one that ****ed it all up, not Cingular. If Cingular knew that the Apple phone was going to be great and not be totally crippled like the ROKR was - which was Apple's fault - then they would sell it regardless. Don't have such bias against Cingular. Verizon and Sprint aren't much better, either.
askthedust
Sep 12, 02:20 PM
I'm in the same boat, just bought mah-jong for my video ipod and it won't drag in. and itunes says my software is "up to date":mad:
guywithabike
Aug 31, 12:58 PM
gugy-
You aren't a graphics professional, I take it.
Glossy screens are, indeed, typically better than the "diffused" screens. Diffused screens prevent glare by adding a layer of diffusing material that scatters light to avoid the "mirror" effect. The problem with this is that it also scatters the light coming from the monitor. This reduces color contrast and vibrancy greatly. Put a diffused and glossy MacBook Pro next to each other. The difference is immediately obvious.
With glossy screens, the image from the monitor isn't diffused, which gives you a virtually wider gamut with much better color contrast and quality. Of course, because it's glossy, you'll have to make sure your environmental lighting doesn't interfere with it.
So, for instance, if you're a filmmaker with a PowerBook for on-site video editing, you might want a diffused screen if you do a lot of outdoor work. If you're a designer that uses a desktop screen in a controlled studio/office environment, you'll want a glossy screen.
Of course, regardless of coating, LCDs have a much wider color gamut than print, so it's really not that important whether or not your screen is glossy or diffused, as long as it's a quality monitor if you're a print designer. For true precision color work, DTP pros go with insane monitors that would make your wallet cry. Most of those screens have glossy coatings. TV work relies on insanely expensive "reference" monitors for emulating the "average" TV with precision.
You aren't a graphics professional, I take it.
Glossy screens are, indeed, typically better than the "diffused" screens. Diffused screens prevent glare by adding a layer of diffusing material that scatters light to avoid the "mirror" effect. The problem with this is that it also scatters the light coming from the monitor. This reduces color contrast and vibrancy greatly. Put a diffused and glossy MacBook Pro next to each other. The difference is immediately obvious.
With glossy screens, the image from the monitor isn't diffused, which gives you a virtually wider gamut with much better color contrast and quality. Of course, because it's glossy, you'll have to make sure your environmental lighting doesn't interfere with it.
So, for instance, if you're a filmmaker with a PowerBook for on-site video editing, you might want a diffused screen if you do a lot of outdoor work. If you're a designer that uses a desktop screen in a controlled studio/office environment, you'll want a glossy screen.
Of course, regardless of coating, LCDs have a much wider color gamut than print, so it's really not that important whether or not your screen is glossy or diffused, as long as it's a quality monitor if you're a print designer. For true precision color work, DTP pros go with insane monitors that would make your wallet cry. Most of those screens have glossy coatings. TV work relies on insanely expensive "reference" monitors for emulating the "average" TV with precision.
T'hain Esh Kelch
Oct 12, 12:45 PM
And all my classes are cancelled tomorrow, so I can stay home and watch Oprah. :D
Aw come on, you do that every day! :p
Aw come on, you do that every day! :p
Eraserhead
Nov 13, 03:48 PM
Again, as I have said previously, the way these images/icons came about was USING OS X APIs.
That's how they're wrong.
w00master
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
That's how they're wrong.
w00master
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
zhenya
Apr 11, 10:14 AM
I agree with the guy who wants any iOS device to be the receiver of AirTunes music.
I hear all the comments about Home Sharing and Airfoil, but both are only partial solutions that work in specific cases. I, personally, nt my old iPod Touch to function as a battery powered airport express - with some battery powered speakers attached, I can stream music anywhere (including the garden, etc) at the same time - perfect for parties. I could do that with AirFoil, but that means when I want to stream from my iPad to my Apple TV or Airport Express speakers in the living room I need a different solution. Plus i'm not sure the Apple Remote app will allow me to switch AirFoil sources on and off, which means I have to go back to my Mac to change them, it's not properly integrated, so not a great solution. Acceptable, sure, but far from ideal.
With home sharing, your old iPod Touch already does this. It's just that you get to 'pull' the music from your library to your Touch, rather than pushing it from the computer to the Touch. Really, what more do you want?
In reality, this is a much better solution than acting as an Airport Express, which only allows you to play one music stream to any or all devices. With home sharing, different devices can listen to different music at the same time.
I hear all the comments about Home Sharing and Airfoil, but both are only partial solutions that work in specific cases. I, personally, nt my old iPod Touch to function as a battery powered airport express - with some battery powered speakers attached, I can stream music anywhere (including the garden, etc) at the same time - perfect for parties. I could do that with AirFoil, but that means when I want to stream from my iPad to my Apple TV or Airport Express speakers in the living room I need a different solution. Plus i'm not sure the Apple Remote app will allow me to switch AirFoil sources on and off, which means I have to go back to my Mac to change them, it's not properly integrated, so not a great solution. Acceptable, sure, but far from ideal.
With home sharing, your old iPod Touch already does this. It's just that you get to 'pull' the music from your library to your Touch, rather than pushing it from the computer to the Touch. Really, what more do you want?
In reality, this is a much better solution than acting as an Airport Express, which only allows you to play one music stream to any or all devices. With home sharing, different devices can listen to different music at the same time.
LegendKillerUK
Apr 19, 07:38 AM
Did anyone else notice that the iPhone picture is actually a 3G running iOS 2.x?
Silly Apple.
Silly Apple.
bloodycape
Aug 24, 02:20 AM
What many people fail to realize it Creative had some accessories that have adapters that work with the Shuffle and the ipod however this alows them to actually put the "made for ipod" tag on it.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
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.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "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." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
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.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
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.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
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.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "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." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
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.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
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.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.