TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S.countries."
Ness net wrote:
> Which is that CDMA is actually growing, not declining, as you always falsely
> contend.
It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
users in the U.S. alone.
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S.countries."
SMS wrote:
> Ness net wrote:
>
>> Which is that CDMA is actually growing, not declining, as you always
>> falsely
>> contend.
>
> It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
> leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
> Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
> users in the U.S. alone.
For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
decided to give up trying.
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
In article <jpudnVfDYurOCRPYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@adelphia.com>, George
<george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
> decided to give up trying.
Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
phones sounds like sour grapes.
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S.countries."
Charles wrote:
> In article <jpudnVfDYurOCRPYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@adelphia.com>, George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
>> decided to give up trying.
>
> Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
> phones sounds like sour grapes.
>
Yes, my buddy used to do acceptance testing and they just couldn't
produce CDMA handsets that could get past acceptance testing.
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
Bingo!!!
They are still wrangling over it legally. Nokia, refusing to play nice, tried to
go it alone - and failed miserably. Now they are simply doing a cut and run,
so to speak.
Navas then falsely interpreting this as a decline in CDMA is complete horse
crap.
"Apology accepted"??? What an ass...!
"Charles" <fort514@mac.com> wrote in message news:241220061055167563%fort514@mac.com...
> In article <jpudnVfDYurOCRPYnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@adelphia.com>, George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For sure, Nokia just couldn't make a good CDMA handset and apparently
>> decided to give up trying.
>
> Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> that was their problem? Nokia's stated reasons for not making CDMA
> phones sounds like sour grapes.
>
> --
> Charles
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S.countries."
Charles wrote:
> Didn't they go with their own CDMA chip set rather than Qualcomms and
> that was their problem?
Cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I could understand a smaller handset maker deciding to concentrate
solely on GSM because the market is so much bigger for GSM handsets. But
for the largest handset maker to write off hundreds of millions of
customers is pretty bizarre.
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> It's not just the growth, it's the installed base as well. CDMA is the
> leading technology in the U.S., with well over half the existing users.
> Nokia is writing off a total available market of more than 100 million
> users in the U.S. alone.
>
>
NTSC is the "installed base" of analog TV in the US as well....It's the
worst TV system on the planet with only 525 lines vs 800 or more for
everyone else.
We've done it again, by the way! ATSC is the DTV system America has
settled on. Compared to the European DTV standard, it sucks just as bad as
NTSC but is cheaper to deploy and more profitable to sell....any questions?
Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the
best".
Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital
schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.
Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe.
They have REPEATERS!
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98A379F727E1Fnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe.
> They have REPEATERS!
Which is only feasible because of the higher population density in Europe.
But everything has trade-offs. If you don't mind living in cramped
quarters, with the government interfering in every aspect of your
life, by all means move to Europe.
--
John Richards (who lived in Europe for 13 years)
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
Seasons greetings Larry....
"crazy oddball digital schemes"...??
Sure, we could get into the whole Beta vs VHS discussion. Which is
an example of another inferior technology that eventually prevailed.
But defending an obviously (and proven) superior standard - you bet!!
I'd rather have the superior technology for my every day use - thank you very much.
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns98A379F727E1Fnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:458e92bf$0$68997
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>
> NTSC is the "installed base" of analog TV in the US as well....It's the
> worst TV system on the planet with only 525 lines vs 800 or more for
> everyone else.
>
> We've done it again, by the way! ATSC is the DTV system America has
> settled on. Compared to the European DTV standard, it sucks just as bad as
> NTSC but is cheaper to deploy and more profitable to sell....any questions?
>
> Just because it's deployed in the USA, doesn't mean it's any good or "the
> best".
>
> Why does this thread have so many defenders of our crazy oddball digital
> schemes? Wouldn't it be nice to have a phone you can crawl on a plane with
> in Atlanta and fly to London or Paris and it just works? I think that
> matters more than what modulation scheme it's using.
>
> Of course, it does take a little getting used to good service in Europe.
> They have REPEATERS!
>
TechWeb: "GSM Based phones can usually be used in many non-U.S. countries."
Linear Mode
