New iPhones to use 3G network

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> > oh, but i can since its well documented that the problems with 3G are
> > coverage area & poor battery life. if/when those are resolved, 3G can be
> > used in a quality based product.
>
> Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're
> functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment.

not entirely, it's currently poor chip engineering.

> You said the iPhone would never do 3G. You are now trying to backtrack.

okay, please post a link where i said "the iPhone will never do 3G", i
never even said anything remotely close to that.

> You DO know your words are recorded for posterity, don't you?

ah, and you do know you have to provide evidence if you make such a
claim, don't you?

waiting.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> > the goal posts are solid... i've been quite careful to never say apple
> > wouldn't use 3G,
>
> Bullshit.

where is the proof?

waiting.

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-D86DD6.23200530112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> >> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after
>> >> he's spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to
>> >> WiFi) and would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
>> >
>> > this is old news, apple will use 3G/4G/??,
>>
>> You said they would never use 3g.
>
> yes, not in its current form. it's abundantly clear the current 3G
> chipset isn't up to Apple's engineering standards so they can't use
> it.

Again- not what you originally said. You said that there was no need
for 3G on the iPhone and that Apple would never use the technology.

You were wrong- admit it.

>
>> > but they are working hard
>> > to fix the current 3G chip design first,
>>
>> No they're not- a real technology comapny will be providing the chip.
>
> Apple is one of the top engineering firms in the world. Remember when
> they had to go into Intel and clean up their design processes? Apple
> is the primary master of small electronics in the world. Nobody in the
> PC side, MP3 side or Phone side can measure up to their level of
> skills with chip design. If 3G is fixable, only Apple has the ability
> to do it. If not, 4G or WiMax will be used.

Really?

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...sooner-rather-
t
han-later/

"Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available next year in bulk
for $23 apiece."


That doesn't look like Apple to me.


>
>> > then helping AT&T build out
>> > the network if Steve gives the go ahead.
>>
>> False.
>
> You have no clue do you Cozmic, quick talking out your ass and deal
> with the facts.
>

I am dealing with the facts- Apple has no input or control over the
network.

>> > Hard to say what the future of 3G is until that happens. Steve may
>> > go with WiMax or 4G, or something entirely unseen at this point, so
>> > the Cell Companies have to wait on Steve to show his hand until
>> > they can move forward.
>>
>> Wait a minute- I don't see your free wifi on that list. Are you
>> saying that wifi will be dead soon?
>
> WiFi remains the primary data access method for iPhone users since
> it's around twice as fast as 3G. Stick with facts Cozmic.

No it's not.

>

At 01 Dec 2007 08:50:00 -0500 Charles wrote:

> They are going to LTE for 4G which is the GSM upgrade to 4G, not the US
> CDMA upgrade to 4G.

While it's an upgrade to UMTS, the GSM 3G standard, keep in mind that these
advanced data standards have little to do with the original TDMA-based GSM
spec, and
are actually "wideband CDMA."

> You might not want to call it switching to GSM,
> maybe evolving to the future GSM would be the way to put it, but in the
> end Verizon will be on GSM.

The irony, of course, is back when GSM adopted W-CDMA as the GSM 3G standard,
many people posted on these NGs that GSM carriers were switching to CDMA!

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

> Really?
>
> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...sooner-rather-
> t
> han-later/
>
> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
> calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available next year in bulk
> for $23 apiece."

yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.

> That doesn't look like Apple to me.

ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple.

stick with facts, Cozmic.

In article <nKg4j.134$Zj.51@fe087.usenetserver.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> While it's an upgrade to UMTS, the GSM 3G standard, keep in mind that these
> advanced data standards have little to do with the original TDMA-based GSM
> spec, and
> are actually "wideband CDMA."

That is true but the essence of the matter is that most of the worlds
carriers will be evolving to the same 4G standard with Verizon's
choice.

> The irony, of course, is back when GSM adopted W-CDMA as the GSM 3G standard,
> many people posted on these NGs that GSM carriers were switching to CDMA!

Which meant little since the US CDMA and W-CDMA were not compatible.
But now Verizon and the GSM carriers will be evolving to the same 4G
standard. I prefer to say evolving rather than switching since from my
reading it does appear that the carriers can evolve to LTE from both US
CDMA and W-CDMA.

--
Charles

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
7E37D3.10360701122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> Really?
>>
>> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...sooner-rather-
>> t
>> han-later/
>>
>> "Broadcom began delivering samples of a low-power integrated device it
>> calls “a 3G Phone on a Chip” ... It will be available next year in bulk
>> for $23 apiece."
>
> yes, but last time I looked this was 2007.

Yes, but a 3G iPhone is not anticipated until late next year at the
earliest. By then, they won't be able to give it away.

>
>> That doesn't look like Apple to me.
>
> ah, but who is pulling the strings to make this happen. Apple.
>

Cite?

In article
<linuxlovesosx-BF0DD9.09093001122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:

> > Battery life and coverage area aren't functions of 3G. They're
> > functions of the device and of management decisions on deployment.
>
> not entirely, it's currently poor chip engineering.

Poor battery engineering, more likely.

Gee, plenty of other devices don't have a problem with battery life. I
wonder why the iPhone does.

Oh, wait--bad engineering of the power system, from the battery on up.

Never mind.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
>> The iPhone just got even better!
>>
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>
>
>
> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's spent
> five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and would have
> made it too bulky and power consuming!
>
>

It won't be bulky and the power consumption will be lower. That's the
reason they didn't implement it yet.

nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote in news:fisbgf$gb2$1@aioe.org:

> Todd Allcock wrote:
>> At 30 Nov 2007 10:56:37 -0500 ned beaty wrote:
>>> The iPhone just got even better!
>>>
>>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=3933866
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow! Let's see how Oxford's going to explain a 3G iPhone after he's
>> spent five months explaining how it was unnecessary (due to WiFi) and
>> would have made it too bulky and power consuming!
>>
>>
>
> It won't be bulky and the power consumption will be lower. That's the
> reason they didn't implement it yet.
>

My 3G phone is far from bulky and has very good battery life. Wanna try
again?