Apple hits back at Verizon in new iPhone ads (video)
Nov 23, 2009 | 07:18 PM
#1
Thread Starter
| Teamspeed Pro
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,554
From: Zoo York
Apple hits back at Verizon in new iPhone ads (video) 
Nov 23, 2009 | 08:09 PM
#3
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,277
From: SFBA
i don't understand how verizon can build up a 3G network so fast. they used to be non-GSM only a couple years ago.
i can't imagine that we are still dealing with coverage issues 25 years after cell phones have been commercially made available. it's just outrageous how slow US cell operators are. even china has better cell network that doesn't drop calls or get bad receptions. i am comparing major cities to major cities, of course.
i can't imagine that we are still dealing with coverage issues 25 years after cell phones have been commercially made available. it's just outrageous how slow US cell operators are. even china has better cell network that doesn't drop calls or get bad receptions. i am comparing major cities to major cities, of course.
Nov 23, 2009 | 08:36 PM
#5
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,885
From: Maryland
Because here everybody has their propietary network. Outside the US most carriers use the same network. US cell service sucks baaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddd .... but they need to "protect" their profits with the stupid plans. You always end losing out, either not using your minutes or use too many minutes and over pay. In Europe you pay per minute, why can we not have that here????
Nov 23, 2009 | 08:41 PM
#6
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,458
From: DC
i don't understand how verizon can build up a 3G network so fast. they used to be non-GSM only a couple years ago.
i can't imagine that we are still dealing with coverage issues 25 years after cell phones have been commercially made available. it's just outrageous how slow US cell operators are. even china has better cell network that doesn't drop calls or get bad receptions. i am comparing major cities to major cities, of course.
i can't imagine that we are still dealing with coverage issues 25 years after cell phones have been commercially made available. it's just outrageous how slow US cell operators are. even china has better cell network that doesn't drop calls or get bad receptions. i am comparing major cities to major cities, of course.
Nov 23, 2009 | 09:50 PM
#7
Banned
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,264
A rather ironic statement.
Here's some history:
Europe, and many south american and asian countries are GSM only not because of any technological advantage (quite the contrary), nor any implied "open" standard. They're GSM because the various governments at the time made it illegal to deploy a cellular network other than GSM. Why do this? Well, who provided the majority of GSM tower code and phones in the 90's? Here's a hint: Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, etc. European companies who, surprise!, the governments in question were only too happy to create a protectionist racket for. There was also a bad case of "not invented here" syndrome, as other cellular technologies were being produced by US companies.
Unlike the European nonsense, the FCC here in the US decided that they would not regulate a cellular system, only grant licenses on certain blocks of frequency spectrum, on which a provider could run whatever system they wanted, so long as it didn't interfere with a system on other channels. The result was the dominance of the CDMA system, which became the de facto standard in the US (as well as in Japan) not because of any government regulation or mandate, but because it was simply better.
Without getting overly technical, CDMA has many benefits over GSM as an air interface method. It makes for much more efficient use of frequency bandwidth, which allows providers to run many more phones on a given number of cells than GSM networks can. That lowers the cost per call, which makes CDMA carriers more money, which in turn allows them to expand faster and generally offer better service and coverage.
Another issue to consider so far as cellular coverage is concerned is this: The US is big, and if you think our cell coverage sucks, visit a remote area of Canada or Russia sometime and see how much signal you get.
AT&T's coverage, and generally their service sucks because they're using a less efficient, more costly cell system. The iPhone was rolled out on AT&T largely for two reasons: 1) Apple, rather stupidly, decided that using a GSM air interface and thereby making the phone able to be sold in Europe was more important than offering the best possible quality of service and range of providers in the US. and 2) AT&T was willing to play ball with Apple on the iPhone for unlimited data plans and branding requirements. Sprint and Verizon were, unfortunately and in retrospect for them stupidly, not.
The iPhone remains the best phone you can buy on the worst provider around because of those things, and it's why I use a CDMA blackberry on Sprint.
Here's some history:
Europe, and many south american and asian countries are GSM only not because of any technological advantage (quite the contrary), nor any implied "open" standard. They're GSM because the various governments at the time made it illegal to deploy a cellular network other than GSM. Why do this? Well, who provided the majority of GSM tower code and phones in the 90's? Here's a hint: Nokia, Siemens, Ericsson, etc. European companies who, surprise!, the governments in question were only too happy to create a protectionist racket for. There was also a bad case of "not invented here" syndrome, as other cellular technologies were being produced by US companies.
Unlike the European nonsense, the FCC here in the US decided that they would not regulate a cellular system, only grant licenses on certain blocks of frequency spectrum, on which a provider could run whatever system they wanted, so long as it didn't interfere with a system on other channels. The result was the dominance of the CDMA system, which became the de facto standard in the US (as well as in Japan) not because of any government regulation or mandate, but because it was simply better.
Without getting overly technical, CDMA has many benefits over GSM as an air interface method. It makes for much more efficient use of frequency bandwidth, which allows providers to run many more phones on a given number of cells than GSM networks can. That lowers the cost per call, which makes CDMA carriers more money, which in turn allows them to expand faster and generally offer better service and coverage.
Another issue to consider so far as cellular coverage is concerned is this: The US is big, and if you think our cell coverage sucks, visit a remote area of Canada or Russia sometime and see how much signal you get.
AT&T's coverage, and generally their service sucks because they're using a less efficient, more costly cell system. The iPhone was rolled out on AT&T largely for two reasons: 1) Apple, rather stupidly, decided that using a GSM air interface and thereby making the phone able to be sold in Europe was more important than offering the best possible quality of service and range of providers in the US. and 2) AT&T was willing to play ball with Apple on the iPhone for unlimited data plans and branding requirements. Sprint and Verizon were, unfortunately and in retrospect for them stupidly, not.
The iPhone remains the best phone you can buy on the worst provider around because of those things, and it's why I use a CDMA blackberry on Sprint.
Nov 23, 2009 | 11:09 PM
#8
Teamspeed Pro
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 6,097
From: East Coast
All I know is that AT&T in the NYC area for me sucks ass and is only getting worse as of late. It's time for me to switch to Verizon and I'm just waiting to find out if the droid is all it's supposed to be or if the TOUR is the best option. Thoughts?
Bummer to cause I kinda wanted an iphone but just got a touch instead while I wait for more droid opinions.
Bummer to cause I kinda wanted an iphone but just got a touch instead while I wait for more droid opinions.
