Discussion:
Analysts: iPhone Outselling Android Nearly 6-to-1
(too old to reply)
Que es 4phun
2009-01-21 15:43:05 UTC
Permalink
http://digg.com/apple/Analysts_iPhone_Outselling_Android_Nearly_6_to_1?FC=PRCK0

While Apple may not have had the strongest of holiday sales for Macs
and iPods, estimates for sales of iPhone 3G versus T-Mobile's G1 may
show Apple's device having outsold one of its closest competitors by a
ratio of six to one in the US alone.

That means if you develop software for Android you need to in reality
price it at least six times higher than the same software for the
Apple iPhone to get the same return for your effort.

--

It is the app store stupid

MORE INSIGHT FROM A NOKIA DEVELOPER

500M iPhone App Downloads? Didn't see that one coming...
Posted Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:43 pm


I was never an iPhone doubter, nor was I negative about the importance
of the App Store and third party apps, but I have to admit how
insanely wrong I was about how popular it would become. I was using my
knowledge of past "catalog" apps, such as Brew's or Java stores, to
color my predictions of the App Store and assumed moderate success and
eventually some sort of black eye for Apple. Woops.

The way it's worked up until now is that mobile phone users would get
a new phone from a carrier, explore all the cool bells and whistles
and start downloading like crazy - for the first 2-4 weeks. They'd
binge on ringtones, wallpapers, digital services and apps (mostly Java
games). Then they'd get bored, or - more likely - get their first
bill, and the downloads would drop off dramatically. I've seen charts
and graphs to this effect, from both app developers and carriers.

Incidentally, I suspect this is why "subscription" apps became so
popular - because they knew that users would sign up for a bunch of
these types of apps, and long after the users had forgotten *where*
the store catalog app was on their phone, they were still getting
billed.

Anyways, this is what I thought would happen with the iPhone. I didn't
really think about it, I just used 2-3 years of previous mobile phone
catalogs as a basis and assumed it was some sort of ingrained
phenomenon. Like Tom Peters says, it's hard to "unlearn". Instead
what's happened is that iPhone users are insane downloaders of new
apps. They fill up their 4 or 5 pages of icons as fast as they can,
and seem to be constantly ready to download the newest or most trivial
apps as they come out. (There definitely *is* a bump of activity after
a new iPhone or iPod Touch is purchased, but instead of going away
forever, it just tends to die down a bit instead.)

Now, whether the half-billion downloads number beats other app stores
like Brew's or say Vodafone's Live download service, I don't know, but
I don't really care. The fact that there's less than 20MM iPhones out
there now, means that the average number of downloads per user is
insanely high, and that's what makes it so interesting to me to
observe.

So let me make some educated guesses why the iPhone App Store is
seeing such massive usage, yeah, based on my own personal experience
and observations. Not sure if any one of these things make the big
difference, or if there's a combination of them all, but here's some
thoughts.

* Third party iPhone Apps aren't segregated from the "core" apps when
it comes to accessing them. If you want to make a phone call - a
principle function of the device - you have to go into the "phone app"
by clicking on it's icon, which you can place anywhere you want
(though it's normally found in the bottom tray). This is quite
different from other smart phones, where there is clear separation
between what is integrated functionality, and what is an add-on. In my
mind, this makes third party apps seem more integral to the iPhone
user experience. (And, btw, is a serendipitous effect of Apple's
reluctance to open up the platform in the first place, not part of
some genius master plan).

* The iPhone builds on habits and functionality already ingrained in a
generation of iPod users who are used to using the iTunes store to
grab the latest and greatest hit song or album. Using the same exact
process to download new applications makes it an evolutionary step for
iPod users, and therefore cause less uncertainty for new buyers. I
know people who are very conscious of their mobile phone bill and
therefore won't try any sort of downloads for fear of being over-
billed for the app or data or both.

* Millions of iTunes users credit cards are on file - a massive number
that makes it easy for Apple to get into a new iPhone users's wallet
right away without additional steps. Also, Apple has already set up a
network of iTunes gift cards available at any grocery store, so even
if you're a youngster with an iPod Touch and no credit card, you can
*still* get access to apps by buying a iTunes credit, or getting one
as a gift.

* Apps are also managed from the PC, again providing confidence to a
user - both in terms of browsing for new apps, downloading them,
managing them, updating them and backing them up. Also if you buy a
new or additional iPhone, or buy an iPod Touch, you can share your
apps among them. It's lots of little things like this which ease the
"friction and fear" that normally accompany a consumer download.

* iPhone users are being shown how to use their devices for things
other than just being a mobile phone. Lots of marketing dollars have
been spent to show users cool things they can do with the iPhone out
of the box, as well as new functionality that can be had from the App
Store. The expandability of the device is sold as a primary feature
unto itself (as any decent platform should be) therefore users will
spend time browsing through the app store to find interesting things
to download because, honestly, that's what they're supposed to do.

* There's tons of free apps, clearly marked as such. Unlike
traditional carrier decks, where ridiculous 2Kb ringtones cost $4
apiece scaring users from downloading *anything*, on the iPhone
there's tons of content where it's clear that it won't cost anything
to download and try. Every iPhone also comes with a built-in data plan
and WiFi, taking away worries that users will be charged obscene
prices per kilobyte just for trying out a new game.

* The general iPhone app quality, it has to be said, is astounding.
The only decent mobile apps you get from third parties on other phone
platforms tend to be games from big players like EA, but even the
smallest developers using the iPhone SDK have created some really
insanely cool apps. This is in *addition* to the big players like EA,
publishing stuff like Katamari Damacy and other games. You have to
hand it to Apple for creating and providing such a great platform and
development tools which has allowed developers to really go crazy.

So, taking all this into account, it's not really surprising that the
download numbers are so high. Most are for free apps, downloaded
easily, managed easily, found and used easily, updated easily, and the
feature is promoted in prime time to millions of users on TV. I don't
see commercials for download stores for any of the Verizon phones -
just the phones or carrier itself.

Now, all this said... I've yet to see a "killer mobile app" beyond the
integrated communication tools already provided in any phone, i.e.
phone calls, sms, email, etc. So how important the iPhone's success in
app downloads is an an example to other manufacturers (such as Nokia,
my employer) I'm not sure.

--

HERE IS YOUR KILLER APP

See the original at telegraph.co.uk —
Sniper rifle software launched for iPod touch

telegraph.co.uk — New BulletFlight program could be a 'killer' app for
Apple
News
2009-01-21 15:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Que es 4phun
500M iPhone App Downloads?
So, let's see...

500 / 12 = 42

ON AVERAGE

R-I-G-H-T...

ROFLMAO
Que es 4phun
2009-01-21 16:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Que es 4phun
500M iPhone App Downloads?
So, let's see...
500 / 12 = 42
ON AVERAGE
R-I-G-H-T...
ROFLMAO
Where do you get 12?
The iTunes app store has only been open six months.

But then I didn't expect you to take the time to read the whole post
or even THINK while you did it.
You are still practicing skills like chewing gum while using crayons?
News
2009-01-21 16:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Que es 4phun
Post by News
Post by Que es 4phun
500M iPhone App Downloads?
So, let's see...
500 / 12 = 42
ON AVERAGE
R-I-G-H-T...
ROFLMAO
Where do you get 12?
Allegedly 12 million iToy handsets sold...
Todd Allcock
2009-01-22 00:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Que es 4phun
Post by News
500 / 12 = 42
ON AVERAGE
R-I-G-H-T...
ROFLMAO
Where do you get 12?
Allegedly 12 million iToy handsets sold...
Don't forget it's kin, the iPod Touch, which can also access the app
store via WiFi...
News
2009-01-22 01:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by News
Post by Que es 4phun
Post by News
500 / 12 = 42
ON AVERAGE
R-I-G-H-T...
ROFLMAO
Where do you get 12?
Allegedly 12 million iToy handsets sold...
Don't forget it's kin, the iPod Touch, which can also access the app
store via WiFi...
Good point. How many of the non-cell drinks coasters?
Que es 4phun
2009-01-22 05:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by News
Post by Que es 4phun
Post by News
500 / 12 = 42
ON AVERAGE
R-I-G-H-T...
ROFLMAO
Where do you get 12?
Allegedly 12 million iToy handsets sold...
Don't forget it's kin, the iPod Touch, which can also access the app
store via WiFi...
Apple, the company sold 22.7 million iPods during its fiscal first
quarter.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-21 18:51:57 UTC
Permalink
At 21 Jan 2009 07:43:05 -0800 Que es 4phun wrote:
http://digg.com/apple/Analysts_iPhone_Outselling_Android_Nearly_6_to_1?FC=
PRCK0
Post by Que es 4phun
While Apple may not have had the strongest of holiday sales for Macs
and iPods, estimates for sales of iPhone 3G versus T-Mobile's G1 may
show Apple's device having outsold one of its closest competitors by a
ratio of six to one in the US alone.
That means if you develop software for Android you need to in reality
price it at least six times higher than the same software for the
Apple iPhone to get the same return for your effort.
So, using that reasoning, you're saying Mac software should retail for
about 10 times its PC equivalent? I'm not a Mac user, so I don't keep up
on Apple software pricing, but I don't think Entourage sells for $1000...

Developing for a smaller market can be quite profitable since you can
more easily standout among fewer offerings. The iTunes app store is
already a very crowded field- if I develop a nifty new flashlite app,
what makes mine standout among the two dozen others? If I create the
only Android flashlight app, I "own" the Android flashlight market.
Filling a need for 100% of a 1 million user market can be far more
lucrative than being one option out of 20 for a user base of 6 million.
Post by Que es 4phun
--
It is the app store stupid
MORE INSIGHT FROM A NOKIA DEVELOPER
The way it's worked up until now is that mobile phone users would get
a new phone from a carrier, explore all the cool bells and whistles
and start downloading like crazy - for the first 2-4 weeks. They'd
binge on ringtones, wallpapers, digital services and apps (mostly Java
games). Then they'd get bored, or - more likely - get their first
bill, and the downloads would drop off dramatically...
Now, whether the half-billion downloads number beats other app stores
like Brew's or say Vodafone's Live download service, I don't know, but
I don't really care. The fact that there's less than 20MM iPhones out
there now, means that the average number of downloads per user is
insanely high, and that's what makes it so interesting to me to
observe.
From a developers standpoint, only the paid apps count. Of the 40 or so
apps my wife has downloaded, only one is commercial- a fantasy RPG my son
played while on vacation.
Post by Que es 4phun
So let me make some educated guesses why the iPhone App Store is
seeing such massive usage, yeah, based on my own personal experience
and observations. Not sure if any one of these things make the big
difference, or if there's a combination of them all, but here's some
thoughts.
* Third party iPhone Apps aren't segregated from the "core" apps when
it comes to accessing them. If you want to make a phone call - a
principle function of the device - you have to go into the "phone app"
by clicking on it's icon, which you can place anywhere you want
(though it's normally found in the bottom tray). This is quite
different from other smart phones, where there is clear separation
between what is integrated functionality, and what is an add-on.
Not really- that's true of dumbphone apps, which are typically Java or
Brew, but native smartphone apps aren't segregated in any way on WinMo,
Blackberry, Palm or even Nokia's Symbian phones. This blogger sounds
like a Java developer.

One of the things I find annoying about the iPhone, actually, is that,
short of Jailbreaking, you CAN'T segregate apps. I tend to tidy up my
WinMo phone's menus by placing app icons in categorized folders- games in
one, multimedia apps in another, navigation/GPS in another and so on. My
wife's iPhone is a mess- you need to flick through 5 screens of assorted
apps to find one. By contrast, my categorized folders fit on one screen
so finding any app is simple.
Post by Que es 4phun
* The iPhone builds on habits and functionality already ingrained in a
generation of iPod users who are used to using the iTunes store to
grab the latest and greatest hit song or album. Using the same exact
process to download new applications makes it an evolutionary step for
iPod users, and therefore cause less uncertainty for new buyers.
True- many iPhone users have been subconsciously trained by their iPods
to succle at Apple's teat.
Post by Que es 4phun
I
know people who are very conscious of their mobile phone bill and
therefore won't try any sort of downloads for fear of being over-
billed for the app or data or both.
But it's just hunky dory to get billed separately by Apple instead of
your mobile operator?
Post by Que es 4phun
* Millions of iTunes users credit cards are on file - a massive number
that makes it easy for Apple to get into a new iPhone users's wallet
right away without additional steps. Also, Apple has already set up a
network of iTunes gift cards available at any grocery store, so even
if you're a youngster with an iPod Touch and no credit card, you can
*still* get access to apps by buying a iTunes credit, or getting one
as a gift.
Agreed. Apple already had a great infrastructure in place. Also, the
app store is carrier-independent. A developer cuts one deal- with Apple,
to be "on deck", not with 90 different mobile operators, so developers
get a crack at the entire platform with one shot.
Post by Que es 4phun
* Apps are also managed from the PC, again providing confidence to a
user - both in terms of browsing for new apps, downloading them,
managing them, updating them and backing them up. Also if you buy a
new or additional iPhone, or buy an iPod Touch, you can share your
apps among them. It's lots of little things like this which ease the
"friction and fear" that normally accompany a consumer download.
Again, here's where the author shows his obvious familarity with
Java/dumbphones rather than smartphones. Windows Mobile apps, for example,
are typically managed from a PC as well. When I ugrade to a new phone
and dock it for the first time, clicking "add/remove software" brings up
a list of every app I've ever installed on any WinMo device from that PC
and allows me to check or uncheck the apps I want to install on the new
one. (It's only worked that way since, oh, 1998 or so, so I understand
the author's confusion...)
Post by Que es 4phun
* iPhone users are being shown how to use their devices for things
other than just being a mobile phone. Lots of marketing dollars have
been spent to show users cool things they can do with the iPhone out
of the box, as well as new functionality that can be had from the App
Store.
This is very true. My oft used anecdote goes back to the first iPhone TV
commercial where the iPhone user is watching Pirates of the Caribbean,
switches to Google Maps to find a seafood restaurant then calls it all
from the same miraculous device. My wife, (pretty much a technophobe,)
says "what's the big deal- your phone does all that." Sadly, I had to
tell her that her's, a smartphone she mostly just used for email, could
as well!

Apple's brilliance wasn't creating a phone that did anything new, it was
creating a phone that did fairly typical smartphone things and telling
everyone unaware of that market about them. Much like the iPod, which
launched when MP3 players were still fairly new and not marketed well.
Apple simply "reinvented the wheel," then screamed via advertising "look-
we've got wheels for sale!" to everyone who'd never seen a wheel before.

Talk to different iPhone users- those who never had a smartphone before,
and those who did, and they have radically different opinions (though
both types I talk to do like the iPhone.) The new-to-smartphone users
are amazed at all the magical things the iPhone can do, while the prior
smartphone users are happy with the UI and ease of use, but are amazed by
what's missing- like searching the calendar, document editing, cut-and-
paste, etc.
Post by Que es 4phun
The expandability of the device is sold as a primary feature
unto itself (as any decent platform should be) therefore users will
spend time browsing through the app store to find interesting things
to download because, honestly, that's what they're supposed to do.
True, at least today. I find the irony delicious that the original
prohibition on third-party apps were supposedly a "strength" of the
iPhone platform for the first eight months...

...until the SDK was announced.
Post by Que es 4phun
* There's tons of free apps, clearly marked as such. Unlike
traditional carrier decks, where ridiculous 2Kb ringtones cost $4
apiece scaring users from downloading *anything*, on the iPhone
there's tons of content where it's clear that it won't cost anything
to download and try. Every iPhone also comes with a built-in data plan
and WiFi, taking away worries that users will be charged obscene
prices per kilobyte just for trying out a new game.
That's a unique spin- forcing users to buy a data plan, whether they want
it or not, "protects them." The author missed his true calling: he
should sell life insurance!
Post by Que es 4phun
* The general iPhone app quality, it has to be said, is astounding.
Compared to java midlets, yes. Compared to most midlets my circa-1980
Commodore 64 offered a rich gaming experience!
Post by Que es 4phun
The only decent mobile apps you get from third parties on other phone
platforms tend to be games from big players like EA, but even the
smallest developers using the iPhone SDK have created some really
insanely cool apps.
Again, if we limit our discussion to gaming and java games, yes. The
iPhone has the potential to be a significant gaming platform, with a
dynamite over-the-air distribution method that Nintendo's DS, for
example, can't match with their ancient go-to-the-store-and-buy-another-
$20-cartridge system.
For productivity apps, the iPhone is still playing catch-up, and so far
floundering.
Post by Que es 4phun
You have to
hand it to Apple for creating and providing such a great platform and
development tools which has allowed developers to really go crazy.
And to drive them crazy as well, for limiting access to the phone hardware,
storage and filesystem, most likely the cause for the lack of
productivity development, that more typically relies on accessing data or
resources found outside an app's sandbox than a game does.
Post by Que es 4phun
So, taking all this into account, it's not really surprising that the
download numbers are so high. Most are for free apps, downloaded
easily, managed easily, found and used easily, updated easily, and the
feature is promoted in prime time to millions of users on TV. I don't
see commercials for download stores for any of the Verizon phones -
just the phones or carrier itself.
Bingo. Apple has put their phone ahead of the carriers it operates on in
thw consumer's mind, which is a pretty new concept in the United States,
where customers typically choose the mobile operator first, base
on coverage and recurring cost then selects a phone from that carrier's
offerings second. People in the US are buying iPhone's regardless of the
fact that it's available from AT&T, rather than because of it.
SMS
2009-01-21 20:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Que es 4phun
http://digg.com/apple/Analysts_iPhone_Outselling_Android_Nearly_6_to_1?FC=
PRCK0
Post by Que es 4phun
While Apple may not have had the strongest of holiday sales for Macs
and iPods, estimates for sales of iPhone 3G versus T-Mobile's G1 may
show Apple's device having outsold one of its closest competitors by a
ratio of six to one in the US alone.
That means if you develop software for Android you need to in reality
price it at least six times higher than the same software for the
Apple iPhone to get the same return for your effort.
So, using that reasoning, you're saying Mac software should retail for
about 10 times its PC equivalent? I'm not a Mac user, so I don't keep up
on Apple software pricing, but I don't think Entourage sells for $1000...
What it means is that the more esoteric applications that have a limited
market are simply never ported to OS-X. Mass market applications have
enough of a market, even with the lower market share, to be ported to
the Mac.

For Android, once more handsets start using that OS, there will be more
apps.
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-22 13:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Apple's brilliance wasn't creating a phone that did anything new, it was
creating a phone that did fairly typical smartphone things and telling
everyone unaware of that market about them.
That's not really fair, the iPhone also does things that other phones
do, but *better*. My previous phone could do email, and web browsing,
and SSH, etc, and I knew perfectly well how to make it do those
things, but in practice I just *didn't*, because the implementations
were poor, the software slow, the interface clunky, etc.
Post by Todd Allcock
That's a unique spin- forcing users to buy a data plan, whether they want
it or not, "protects them." The author missed his true calling: he
should sell life insurance!
I don't think that's fair either. It's highly unlikely that anyone
would want an iPhone with no data plan, and the unlimited data has
been an absolutely key feature from my personal point of view with
regard to decision to buy and satisfaction with it after purchase.

I think the "data is always all free, no matter what you do"
(except go abroad ;-) ) is vital to customer use of the data features.
Mobile phone companies are notorious for ripping people off, and an
unequivocal guarantee like that is extremely important for confidence
in using the service.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-22 17:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
Apple's brilliance wasn't creating a phone that did anything new, it was
creating a phone that did fairly typical smartphone things and telling
everyone unaware of that market about them.
That's not really fair, the iPhone also does things that other phones
do, but *better*. My previous phone could do email, and web browsing,
and SSH, etc, and I knew perfectly well how to make it do those
things, but in practice I just *didn't*, because the implementations
were poor, the software slow, the interface clunky, etc.
I'm not suggesting Apple didn't raise the bar- they certainly did; I'm just
suggesting that customer education was a far important tool in their
success. A father of one my daughter's friends recently told me he was
thinking of switching to the iPhone, because he'd like to get his personal
email while on the run, and when I asked him about it, he seriously thought
only iPhones and Blackberries had that ability, and he didn't want a second
Blackberry (he carries one for work.) And this guy's a rocket scientist!
(Literally- he works for Lockheed...)

But for all the impressive work Apple did with the media player, UI, and
browser, the rest of the implementation was pretty substandard- Google Maps?
This was the best they could do for GPS/navigation? There are $20 Verizon
phones with better navigation implementation, and given the current
popularity of in-car navigation device sales, you'd think Apple/AT&T/(insert
local iPhone wireless carrier here) would want a better implementation, even
if a subscription model was used.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
That's a unique spin- forcing users to buy a data plan, whether they want
it or not, "protects them." The author missed his true calling: he
should sell life insurance!
I don't think that's fair either. It's highly unlikely that anyone
would want an iPhone with no data plan, and the unlimited data has
been an absolutely key feature from my personal point of view with
regard to decision to buy and satisfaction with it after purchase.
I like mobile data as well, but I'm pretty much against "mandatory"
anything, if a person decides it's unneccessary or too expensive. If your
mobile operator didn't REQUIRE an iPhone data plan, you'd still buy it, so
you wouldn't be affected. The person who just wants to combine their iPod
and phone into one device, is forced to pay $30 month forever as a "penalty"
for not buying an iPod Touch and lugging separate devices around.

Many people use the "smarts" of their smartphone without cellular data- for
keeping their contacts and calendar handy, for example. When the iPhone
launched, keeping PIM data was pretty much a desktop sync-only affair
(MobileMe was buggy upon launch, and Exchange support came much later) so
the cellular data did nothing for the contacts and calendar apps. Even the
much-touted "mobile iTunes store" only worked over WiFi until very recently,
so the cellular data didn't do the iPod software any favors either. At
first, (prior to the app store and v2.0,) cellular data was pretty much
limited to web browsing and email, both of which also worked fine over WiFi
(better, in fact, considering the original iPhone was 2G) for those that
didn't _require_ completely ubiquitous access. The data plan requirement,
IMO, (apart from a money grab,) was mostly there to support "visual
voicemail"- another pre-existing "invention" Apple marketed as a first, that
wouldn't work without ubiquitous connectivity.
Post by Jon Ribbens
I think the "data is always all free, no matter what you do"
(except go abroad ;-) ) is vital to customer use of the data features.
Mobile phone companies are notorious for ripping people off, and an
unequivocal guarantee like that is extremely important for confidence
in using the service.
True, but the answer to that, for people who don't want/need cellular data,
is to allow a complete cellular data block on the account, like Verizon
(used to) offer, to prevent accidental high pay-per-kb data charges.
T-Mobile had no pay-per-use data, all data plans were unlimited and optional
(until the Google G1 phone, which like the iPhone, requires ubiquitous
connectivity for some of its advertised features, so T-Mo forces a $25/month
data plan on G1 owners.) T-Mo even offers "walled garden" data access for
free to all customers without data plans, that allows access to customer
account information, online bill pay of their T-Mo account, and the purchase
and download of ringtones, wallpaper, games, etc. That model could've
worked for the iPhone as well- a "free" limited data plan that supported the
visual voicemail and mobile iTunes purchases only, (with AT&T getting a
small commission on the iTunes purchases for their "trouble", since unlike
T-Mo's "store" the mobile operator is cut of the loop on the Apple iTunes
and app stores.)

The mobile use of data is a powerful tool, and certainly a lot of fun,
pparticularly on the iPhone, so that in and of itself should be the only
forces neccessary to drive its adoption- not its mandatory inclusion with
the shiny object du jour.
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-23 00:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
But for all the impressive work Apple did with the media player, UI, and
browser, the rest of the implementation was pretty substandard- Google Maps?
This was the best they could do for GPS/navigation? There are $20 Verizon
phones with better navigation implementation, and given the current
popularity of in-car navigation device sales, you'd think Apple/AT&T/(insert
local iPhone wireless carrier here) would want a better implementation, even
if a subscription model was used.
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Post by Todd Allcock
I like mobile data as well, but I'm pretty much against "mandatory"
anything, if a person decides it's unneccessary or too expensive.
I think it would change the perception though. Bear in mind that Apple
is all about *removing* choices from the customer. If mobile data was
an optional extra it would make it seem like an expensive unnecessary
add-on, which I think would again make customers less happy with it
as a feature, and less happy with the iPhone as a purchase.

I guess I just find it difficult to be against it given that when
I moved from my previous phone (and carrier) to the iPhone, my
monthly contract cost went *down* but my data allowance increased from
something stupid like 10MB a month to unlimited. It's hard to feel bad
about that ;-)
Post by Todd Allcock
The data plan requirement, IMO, (apart from a money grab,) was
mostly there to support "visual voicemail"-
That doesn't make any sense - as you yourself said later in that very
post, the carrier could quite easily create a "walled garden" that
allowed people to access their voicemail but nothing else.
Post by Todd Allcock
another pre-existing "invention" Apple marketed as a first
I'm not aware of any other mobile phones that provide it? Carriers had
to install special equipment from Apple to be able to do so.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-23 01:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
But for all the impressive work Apple did with the media player, UI, and
browser, the rest of the implementation was pretty substandard- Google Maps?
This was the best they could do for GPS/navigation? There are $20 Verizon
phones with better navigation implementation, and given the current
popularity of in-car navigation device sales, you'd think
Apple/AT&T/(insert
local iPhone wireless carrier here) would want a better implementation, even
if a subscription model was used.
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Perhaps it's a violation of the "no apps that compete with/replace core
apps" dictum that apparently has just been lifted WRT browsers (which,
ironically, is the core app LEAST in need of a replacement, IMO!)
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
I like mobile data as well, but I'm pretty much against "mandatory"
anything, if a person decides it's unneccessary or too expensive.
I think it would change the perception though. Bear in mind that Apple
is all about *removing* choices from the customer. If mobile data was
an optional extra it would make it seem like an expensive unnecessary
add-on, which I think would again make customers less happy with it
as a feature, and less happy with the iPhone as a purchase.
Fair enough...
Post by Jon Ribbens
I guess I just find it difficult to be against it given that when
I moved from my previous phone (and carrier) to the iPhone, my
monthly contract cost went *down* but my data allowance increased from
something stupid like 10MB a month to unlimited. It's hard to feel bad
about that ;-)
No argument there!
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
The data plan requirement, IMO, (apart from a money grab,) was
mostly there to support "visual voicemail"-
That doesn't make any sense - as you yourself said later in that very
post, the carrier could quite easily create a "walled garden" that
allowed people to access their voicemail but nothing else.
True, but I'm talking about within contraints of the mobile operator in
question. In the USA, AT&T, the iPhone's carrier, has no "free" data plan
already set up- they charge for all data, either via pay-by-kb, small MB
"buckets" or unlimited. Of those existing options, I'll conceed only
"unlimited" makes sense.

T-Mo's walled garden approach was put in place long ago to give customers
without data plans the ability to empty their wallets, since the access is
limited to sellable features (or bill payment.)
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
another pre-existing "invention" Apple marketed as a first
I'm not aware of any other mobile phones that provide it? Carriers had
to install special equipment from Apple to be able to do so.
I think "special equipment" was an exaggeration. I remember the stories
being more along of the lines of "configure their backend," etc. Visual
Voicemail predated the iPhone via 3rd party companies. I used Callwave.com
for it as far back as early 2007, (until they started charging for it, then
I switched to YouMail.com.) I could've done it earlier but I was missing
one piece of the "puzzle."

Visual Voicemail is essentially a clever smoke and mirrors combination of
call forwarding, a voicemail to email server, and a phone with push email
capability (Blackberry, Palm, WinMo, Symbian, iPhone, etc.) and a media
player. You (or in the iPhone's case, your mobile operator) forwards your
phone when "unavailable" (turned off, out of service area, or unanswered-
the same criteria the operator uses to send a call to voicemail) to a number
provided by your VV provider (obviously in the iPhone's case, the operator
simply sends it to their VV server, instead of their usual voicemail
server.) Then the provider's (or mobile operator's) server emails the
recorded audio file to the phone's push-email account so the phone receives
it in a timely manner, or in the case of the iPhone a "hidden" push email
account in the iPhone dedicated for VV, segregated in the UI for "Visual
Voicemail." Then the audio attachment, when selected, is simply played
through the phone's media player software. No big whoop. The Apple
cleverness was strong-arming a carrier into doing it all in-house.

I was late to the push email party, so I didn't personally use VV until I
had push service, but was using it several months before the original iPhone
launched. The power of VV, to me, is detailed missed call reporting- my VV
provider tags all voicemails _and missed calls_ with caller name ID if
available, which is nice if I was outside the service area (i.e. on an
airplane.) When my phone reconnects, I get emails for everyone who left me
a message, obviously, but also for any "hangups" who didn't.

I've secretly hoped the jailbreakers would figure out how to manipulate the
"secret" VV settings on the iPhone so I could add it to my wife's unlocked
phone. I've set up VV on her phone via YouMail, but it comes in on her
Exchange email account, like on my Windows Mobile phone, rather than show up
as "real" iPhone VV like it would if she were on AT&T, the iPhone's official
US operator. (Then, of course, we'd be paying the "real" $30/month for AT&T
unlimited data, instead of the $6/month we pay T-Mobile for unlimited
data...)
Not Me
2009-01-23 01:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
But for all the impressive work Apple did with the media player, UI, and
browser, the rest of the implementation was pretty substandard- Google Maps?
This was the best they could do for GPS/navigation? There are $20 Verizon
phones with better navigation implementation, and given the current
popularity of in-car navigation device sales, you'd think
Apple/AT&T/(insert
local iPhone wireless carrier here) would want a better
implementation, even
if a subscription model was used.
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Perhaps it's a violation of the "no apps that compete with/replace core
apps" dictum that apparently has just been lifted WRT browsers (which,
ironically, is the core app LEAST in need of a replacement, IMO!)
Making the 'relaxation' valueless!
Todd Allcock
2009-01-23 02:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Not Me
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Jon Ribbens
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Perhaps it's a violation of the "no apps that compete with/replace core
apps" dictum that apparently has just been lifted WRT browsers (which,
ironically, is the core app LEAST in need of a replacement, IMO!)
Making the 'relaxation' valueless!
Yeah, I was going to mention that, but thought I'd try to stay positive!
;-) Cynically, one can see it as a special case that won't make any
difference, but I prefer to see it (hopefully) as the beginning of a trend
that might result in the other "no compete" restrictions to be lifted,
paving the way for 3rd-party GPS apps, media players, etc.
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-23 02:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Jon Ribbens
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Perhaps it's a violation of the "no apps that compete with/replace core
apps" dictum that apparently has just been lifted WRT browsers (which,
ironically, is the core app LEAST in need of a replacement, IMO!)
The most likely things I can think of are either (a) some unexpected
hardware limitation with the iPhone GPS making it unsuitable for
satnav (although I can't imagine what), or (b) safety issues with the
satnav being interrupted by phone calls. Obviously (b) could be fixed
in software, but perhaps it's architecturally difficult.
Post by Todd Allcock
I think "special equipment" was an exaggeration. I remember the stories
being more along of the lines of "configure their backend," etc. Visual
Voicemail predated the iPhone via 3rd party companies. I used Callwave.com
for it as far back as early 2007, (until they started charging for it, then
I switched to YouMail.com.)
Ah, OK. I think it being a built-in pre-configured native feature of
the phone (and network) is a pretty big step up then, from the point
of view of convenience to the user, and it was the first phone to
have it. I don't think it's unfair of Apple to claim a first there.
Post by Todd Allcock
Visual Voicemail is essentially a clever smoke and mirrors combination of
call forwarding, a voicemail to email server, and a phone with push email
capability (Blackberry, Palm, WinMo, Symbian, iPhone, etc.) and a media
player. You (or in the iPhone's case, your mobile operator) forwards your
phone when "unavailable" (turned off, out of service area, or unanswered-
the same criteria the operator uses to send a call to voicemail) to a number
provided by your VV provider (obviously in the iPhone's case, the operator
simply sends it to their VV server, instead of their usual voicemail
server.)
Well, with in the UK at least, your voicemails are simultaneously
available via the "old-style" callable voicemail system *and* the
iPhone "visual" voicemail, so the systems must be fairly integrated.
I would also strongly suspect SMS notification of voice messages, not
email, but that's a nit-pick.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-23 04:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Jon Ribbens
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Perhaps it's a violation of the "no apps that compete with/replace core
apps" dictum that apparently has just been lifted WRT browsers (which,
ironically, is the core app LEAST in need of a replacement, IMO!)
The most likely things I can think of are either (a) some unexpected
hardware limitation with the iPhone GPS making it unsuitable for
satnav (although I can't imagine what), or (b) safety issues with the
satnav being interrupted by phone calls. Obviously (b) could be fixed
in software, but perhaps it's architecturally difficult.
I think it's more of a case of duplicate functionality. (Though as a
non-developer, I don't know what APIs are available- perhaps the GPS data
isn't made available in a useful enough way, and the rules don't permit
working around the APIs.)
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
I think "special equipment" was an exaggeration. I remember the stories
being more along of the lines of "configure their backend," etc. Visual
Voicemail predated the iPhone via 3rd party companies. I used Callwave.com
for it as far back as early 2007, (until they started charging for it, then
I switched to YouMail.com.)
Ah, OK. I think it being a built-in pre-configured native feature of
the phone (and network) is a pretty big step up then, from the point
of view of convenience to the user, and it was the first phone to
have it. I don't think it's unfair of Apple to claim a first there.
Certainly it was the first "out of the box" VV solution.
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
Visual Voicemail is essentially a clever smoke and mirrors combination of
call forwarding, a voicemail to email server, and a phone with push email
capability (Blackberry, Palm, WinMo, Symbian, iPhone, etc.) and a media
player. You (or in the iPhone's case, your mobile operator) forwards your
phone when "unavailable" (turned off, out of service area, or unanswered-
the same criteria the operator uses to send a call to voicemail) to a number
provided by your VV provider (obviously in the iPhone's case, the operator
simply sends it to their VV server, instead of their usual voicemail
server.)
Well, with in the UK at least, your voicemails are simultaneously
available via the "old-style" callable voicemail system *and* the
iPhone "visual" voicemail, so the systems must be fairly integrated.
I would also strongly suspect SMS notification of voice messages, not
email, but that's a nit-pick.
GSM providers use SMS to trigger the "old-style" VM indicator, but the 160
character limit prevents the delivery of an attached audio file. MMS could
work for shorter VMs, but we all know the iPhone doesn't support MMS- the
actual audio delivery is via "silent" email.
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-23 10:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
I think it's more of a case of duplicate functionality. (Though as a
non-developer, I don't know what APIs are available- perhaps the GPS data
isn't made available in a useful enough way, and the rules don't permit
working around the APIs.)
With a major feature such as satnav, from a major developer such as
TomTom, for example, I don't think the App Store T&Cs have any
relevance whatsoever. The developer and Apple can just negotiate
an individual contract between themselves as appropriate.
Post by Todd Allcock
GSM providers use SMS to trigger the "old-style" VM indicator, but the 160
character limit prevents the delivery of an attached audio file.
Obviously ;-)
Post by Todd Allcock
MMS could work for shorter VMs, but we all know the iPhone doesn't
support MMS- the actual audio delivery is via "silent" email.
Unless you have some evidence for that, it's a rather unlikely
assumption. I would expect the voicemails to be delivered in exactly
the same way as MMS, i.e. an SMS is sent identifying the phone number
of the sender and the URL of the attached content, and the phone goes
and downloads it when appropriate (probably by HTTP).
Todd Allcock
2009-01-23 14:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
MMS could work for shorter VMs, but we all know the iPhone doesn't
support MMS- the actual audio delivery is via "silent" email.
Unless you have some evidence for that, it's a rather unlikely
assumption. I would expect the voicemails to be delivered in exactly
the same way as MMS, i.e. an SMS is sent identifying the phone number
of the sender and the URL of the attached content, and the phone goes
and downloads it when appropriate (probably by HTTP).
Perhaps. I'm not necessarily suggesting it has to be email in the
typical POP/IMAP sense- it could certainly be a HTTP-based protocol,
(like what EAS uses, if I'm not mistaken, correct?) I just meant a
"straight" MMS is unlikely since I doubt Apple would build MMS support
into the phone, then lock end-users out of using it themselves.
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-23 18:24:15 UTC
Permalink
I just meant a "straight" MMS is unlikely since I doubt Apple would
build MMS support into the phone, then lock end-users out of using
it themselves.
An MMS notification is utterly trivial. It contains very little other
than the sender ID and the URL of the message content. The work Apple
would need to do to support MMS messages in the iPhone is all to do
with user interface, not protocol handling code.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-23 23:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
I just meant a "straight" MMS is unlikely since I doubt Apple would
build MMS support into the phone, then lock end-users out of using
it themselves.
An MMS notification is utterly trivial. It contains very little other
than the sender ID and the URL of the message content. The work Apple
would need to do to support MMS messages in the iPhone is all to do
with user interface, not protocol handling code.
Thanks for the education. I've always assumed it was harder since
neither Apple nor Windows Mobile phones include MMS as a OS native feature,
even though the email applications already have a UI, and already handle
SMS. (While Windows Mobile phones do support MMS, it's through an
included 3rd-party software add-on, rather than built-in to the native
messaging app itself.)
Marc Heusser
2009-01-23 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Google Maps is excellent as a map. It isn't good as a satnav, but it
clearly isn't *supposed* to be. I don't know why there isn't a for-pay
satnav app for iPhone yet, I agree with you it's strange there isn't
one.
Actually there are already several, but only for marine navigation.
Just search for Navionics.

This points to non-technical reasons. TomTom has their maps already up
and running and is just not allowed to offer them ever since iPhone 3G
was introduced.

Marc
--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
<http://www.heusser.com>
Larry
2009-01-23 05:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
I guess I just find it difficult to be against it given that when
I moved from my previous phone (and carrier) to the iPhone, my
monthly contract cost went *down* but my data allowance increased from
something stupid like 10MB a month to unlimited. It's hard to feel bad
about that ;-)
"UNLIMITED SERVICE" to any device a sellphone carrier will put on his
system under that "moniker" is in no danger, whatsoever, of using
massive amounts of data.....

CASE IN POINT - NOT Jailbroken iPHONE:

NO removable memory to offload downloaded data, even if an app not now
available from app store should materialize. On a 16GB iPhone, you can
download about 10-12GB, total, and why save it as there is no way to
offload it.

NO constantly downloading USER app like REAL streaming. YouTube is NOT
streaming. YouTube is a VIDEO CLIP service, not a real-time streaming
service, like Shoutcast or Icecast. This also explains the lack of
codecs that encourage streaming:
Realmedia
Shockwave Flash
Windows Media Streaming
open source streaming products
iPhone is a CLIP player....video and audio. What it plays comes from
very few full-time streaming sources, other than slow load MP3s. Will
it play MP3 STREAMS? I couldn't get it to at the ATT store on known MP3
streaming stations, but that may have been related to ATT blocking
ports.

http://dir.xiph.org/index.php
Someone go here and click on one of the MP3 streams using the m3u link.
Try Swiss Radio Pop from:
http://dir.xiph.org/listen/1347960/listen.m3u
if it won't render the Xiph directory. Will it respond to .m3u file
types, which is what the MP3 streams are all starting from? Try it when
connected to ATT 3G. They all play fine on nasty old Alltel 3G on the
N800 media player BT tethered. I don't think I ever got .m3u to stream
with an iPhone 3G in my hands. I did try.

(To refresh memory, REAL STREAMING has NO BEGINNING and NO END OF FILE,
which sets it apart from even 2 hour VIDEO CLIPS that do.)

NO apps to connect to intensive downloading services like USENET.
Usenet it plays are TEXT ONLY web-based services, like Google, no NNTP
clients I've seen with download-decode-assemble (like WinRAR compilers)
exist. iPhone's never going to connect to ALT.BINARIES.anything to get
music and movies, which would make Apple puke up applesauce somethin'
just awful.

Of course, even if you COULD download movies from
alt.binaries.movies.divx, you couldn't PLAY them as it lacks DivX and
Xvid decoder/rendering the movies are posted in. Download-play then
dump would work if it could download and play but no cigar.

Its little slow processor is even MORE loaded up processing sellphone
than my Nokia N800's little slow processor, which ISN'T an online gaming
machine so that heavy use app is out. Sellphone data has WAY too much
latency, no matter how much speed they brag about, to be a gaming
machine, anyways even if it had a 10Ghz 4-core supercomputer with 5GB of
the fastest RAM on the planet. Gaming's pretty much out
online...keeping it from using "UNLIMITED DATA".

NO BLUETOOTH TETHERING to use it as a modem for a real computer not
hobbled by Sellphone companies, so they wouldn't need to change the
wording to the 5GB/month or we're gonna screw you, like a Sellphone USB
modem has attached to it. Verboten!

etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Just like any little Sellphone PDA, it's KEPT incapable of being a data
hog...on purpose, partly so we can brag about "UNLIMITED DATA" it uses
in little bursts on Webpages, Email with limited attachements and Video
CLIPS.
nospam
2009-01-23 05:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
NO removable memory to offload downloaded data, even if an app not now
available from app store should materialize. On a 16GB iPhone, you can
download about 10-12GB, total, and why save it as there is no way to
offload it.
so where does the other 4-6 gig go?
Post by Larry
NO constantly downloading USER app like REAL streaming.
not this again.
Post by Larry
YouTube is NOT
streaming.
it is.
Post by Larry
YouTube is a VIDEO CLIP service, not a real-time streaming
service, like Shoutcast or Icecast.
call it whatever you want. there's shoutcast and icecast support,
along with joost and ustream too ands probably others. i think i read
that some people watched the inauguration *live* on the iphone.
Post by Larry
This also explains the lack of
Realmedia
realmedia is now supported by at least one app and it's not even from
real.
Post by Larry
Shockwave Flash
Windows Media Streaming
open source streaming products
if it's open source, then anyone can incorporate it into an app.
Post by Larry
iPhone is a CLIP player....video and audio. What it plays comes from
very few full-time streaming sources, other than slow load MP3s. Will
it play MP3 STREAMS?
it plays mp3 streams.
Post by Larry
I couldn't get it to at the ATT store on known MP3
streaming stations, but that may have been related to ATT blocking
ports.
or that you didn't know what you were doing.
Post by Larry
Will it respond to .m3u file
types, which is what the MP3 streams are all starting from?
there are quite a few apps that support m3u.
Post by Larry
Try it when
connected to ATT 3G. They all play fine on nasty old Alltel 3G on the
N800 media player BT tethered.
i've listened to streaming radio stations using edge.
Post by Larry
I don't think I ever got .m3u to stream
with an iPhone 3G in my hands. I did try.
not very hard you didn't.
Post by Larry
(To refresh memory, REAL STREAMING has NO BEGINNING and NO END OF FILE,
which sets it apart from even 2 hour VIDEO CLIPS that do.)
right. whatever definition you want to use.
Post by Larry
NO apps to connect to intensive downloading services like USENET.
there are at least two newsreader apps.
Post by Larry
Usenet it plays are TEXT ONLY web-based services, like Google, no NNTP
clients I've seen with download-decode-assemble (like WinRAR compilers)
exist. iPhone's never going to connect to ALT.BINARIES.anything to get
music and movies, which would make Apple puke up applesauce somethin'
just awful.
there's nothing stopping anyone from writing such an app, other than
there aren't enough people that actually care about downloading
binaries from usenet on a phone.

since many of them are large and take a while to download on a fast
link, why would anyone even want to do it on a phone? queue 'em up on
a machine at home (which you can access remotely from the phone), and
then stream *that* if you are that hard up to watch porn.
Post by Larry
Of course, even if you COULD download movies from
alt.binaries.movies.divx, you couldn't PLAY them as it lacks DivX and
Xvid decoder/rendering the movies are posted in. Download-play then
dump would work if it could download and play but no cigar.
you seem to think that this is actually something that a lot of people
want to do. most people don't know what usenet *is*, let alone that
it's a source of binaries.
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-23 10:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Larry
(To refresh memory, REAL STREAMING has NO BEGINNING and NO END OF FILE,
which sets it apart from even 2 hour VIDEO CLIPS that do.)
right. whatever definition you want to use.
I wouldn't bother with Larry. He's in his own little world. If Larry
disagrees with reality, reality is wrong. He's incapable of changing
his opinion in response to new information.
Larry
2009-01-24 01:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
so where does the other 4-6 gig go?
Well...lessee....OPERATING SYSTEM - APPS - DRIVERS - Storage space Apps
store stuff in - Storage space the PHONE stores stuff in.

I'm just guessing that the phone will CRASH HARD if you occupy the entire
flash memory with your stuff. Most all computers do, you know.
nospam
2009-01-24 02:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by nospam
so where does the other 4-6 gig go?
Well...lessee....OPERATING SYSTEM - APPS - DRIVERS - Storage space Apps
store stuff in - Storage space the PHONE stores stuff in.
apps are optional and the firmware files which contain both the
operating system and drivers are about 200-300 meg. and don't forget
marketing bytes versus actual bytes. on a 16 gig iphone there's about
15 gig of available space for apps, music, movies, etc.
Post by Larry
I'm just guessing
that much is true.
Post by Larry
that the phone will CRASH HARD if you occupy the entire
flash memory with your stuff. Most all computers do, you know.
you'd be wrong.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-23 07:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
(To refresh memory, REAL STREAMING has NO BEGINNING and NO END OF FILE,
which sets it apart from even 2 hour VIDEO CLIPS that do.)
While that's true, what's the difference in data use between watching one
hour of "streaming," vs. a one hour "clip?"

I doubt very many people start streaming a live video feed then walk away
from their phone and let it stream 24/7...
Post by Larry
NO apps to connect to intensive downloading services like USENET.
Usenet it plays are TEXT ONLY web-based services, like Google, no NNTP
clients I've seen with download-decode-assemble (like WinRAR compilers)
exist. iPhone's never going to connect to ALT.BINARIES.anything to get
music and movies, which would make Apple puke up applesauce somethin'
just awful.
True, but then again, that's not really the point of an unlimited on-
phone data plan, is it? The point is that the user doesn't have to worry
if he'll be socked with a bazillion dollar bill at the end of the month.
Larry
2009-01-24 02:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
While that's true, what's the difference in data use between watching one
hour of "streaming," vs. a one hour "clip?"
If you watch a long YouTube video clip come in, it goes full bore,
storing it to your drive, until it's loaded....then, when the clip meets
the EOF, it stops....in this case freeing the phone system's data link
to a Dormant state so others can connect to it.

If you watch a real stream, say on your cable modem box, you see a
constant stream of X Kbps, depending on how intense the stream is,
coming into your system, in little spurts if it's a fast system as the
packets will have large gaps of dead time between them....out ahead of
the never-ending, never-unloading buffer in the player that keeps the
stream playing when the net, or the server, balks for whatever reason.

On a slow sellphone data link trying to watch streaming video, of
course, that ain't gonna happen on a regular basis, so the stream
downloads constantly on the overloaded system, occasionally to regularly
not being able to refill the buffer before it runs dry, playing faster
than delivery. Fast video over a sellphone data circuit is a pipe
dream. Even BT tethered to my fast laptop, the high latency is the
same.

I used the really cool CUT AND PASTE capability of the Nokia N800 OS2008
Diablo Linux OS to copy the reverse traceroute report from
Usenetserver.com's Network Status function out of the browser window of
its Mozilla-based browser, then PASTED it into its email client, not a
web-based email webpage. I then emailed the text of the reverse trace
from UNS' server farm to my N800 on Windstar, Alltel's data system EVDO
Rev 0 to my MotoROKR Z6m sellphone modem BT DUN connected to the Linux
tablet, the one with the really cool CUT AND PASTE capability. It came
back as:

"Your IP is 166.166.22.14

1 ge2-1.core2.usenetserver.com (208.49.83.45) 0.401 ms 0.373 ms
0.198
ms 2 TenGigabitEthernet3-3.ar5.ATL1.gblx.net (67.17.197.165) 0.490 ms
0.379 ms 0.614 ms 3 64.213.176.46 (64.213.176.46) 5.737 ms 5.627 ms
5.614 ms 4 * * * 5 75.116.241.36 (75.116.241.36) 21.976 ms 22.615
ms
22.102 ms 6 166.166.22.14 (166.166.22.14) 22.204 ms 23.877 ms
21.965
ms 7 166.166.22.14 (166.166.22.14) 830.693 ms 547.947 ms 611.889 ms

For a network detailed traceroute use the UNS detailed traceroute tool

Times are the total time an ICMP packet took to go from our traceroute
server to that hop. An asterisk (*) shows that a hop either did not send
ICMP "time exceeded" message or sent it with a ttl too small to reach
us.
Other possible annotations after the time are !H, !N, or !P (got a host,
network or protocol unreachable, respectively). !S or !F (source route
failed or fragmentation needed - neither of these should ever occur and
the associated gateway is busted if you see one), !X (communication
administratively prohibited - that is to say a firwall is most likely
blocking the traceroute), or ! (ICMP unreachable code N). If almost all
the probes result in some kind of unreachable, traceroute will give up
and exit. "

Step 6 166.166.22.14 must be the input to the Sellphone system, a very
respectable 22ms from UNS' new server farm in Atlanta. Step 7 is the
ping from the phone over the Alltel network, a tremendous increase that
varies greatly.

Then, using the amazingly cool Adobe Flash 9 plugin of my mozilla
browser on the N800 Linux tablet, I ran the Flash speedtest at:
http://speedtest.knology.net/
which has a very wide pipe that's quite lightly loaded to the net.
Using the fantastic CUT AND PASTE facility of the Mozilla browser, I
COPIED the Flash player output with the browser COPY command and when I
PASTED it into the Linux tablet's Email client the browser COPY had
converted it to text for easy transmission:

Test Result:
Download Speed: 570 kbps (71.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 89 kbps (11.1 KB/sec transfer rate)

(I could have just as easily snapped a screen shot of the pretty Flash
testers analog dials during the test but someone would bitch at me for
posting the resulting jpgs, so I used only text.)

Alltel really throttles upload to keep the gamers off, which only
bothers me at times on rdesktop running my Win box remotely with the
Linux tablet. The 570Kbps download speed is what is currently available
inside my metal skinned mobile home with only 2 bars of signal on the
Z6m laying on my cluttered desk over an amazing array of wires, DVD+R
reflectors and just plain junque. Nothing's moving on its own, tonight,
so I don't THINK there are any "bad guys" lurking about.

As you can see, we're NOT going to be watching 768Kbps TV feeds under
these conditions at 9PM unless we switch the tablet to one of the
current 6 wifi hotspots (2 are mine) available with 7Mbps bandwidth. If
we were to connect to 500Kbps streaming, tonight, it would "PROBABLY"
run without balking, BUT, unlike over your cable modem, data downloading
would be a constantly-connected, full bandwidth, hour-after-hour load on
the system....which is fine, but pretty near to capacity, here.

A 90MB video clip would take (90,000KB/71.3KB per second = 1262 seconds,
21 minutes at this speed)....THEN IT WOULD STOP, unlike a real stream.

I can understand why sellular is terrified of users streaming and forbid
it in any device they can wrestle control of away from the users....even
by hook and crook!

It it took an hour to download the 1 hour VIDEO CLIP, there would be no
difference in the loading on the system. But, clips, like YouTube,
usually download in much less time than it takes them to play, even on
slow sellular circuits....(c;] The other thing to think about is that
streaming users usually just leave the stream running way past when a
YouTube stream would automatically end, some whether they are actually
watching or listening to it...or not! Users with "UNLIMITED SERVICE",
like on an iPhone plan, could care less about the company's point of
view when they're forking over hundreds of dollars EXTRA each year to
the sellphone company.....for a service marked "UNLIMITED DATA".....

Thanks, Todd, for the opportunity to point out a great use of the really
cool CUT AND PASTE facility and FLASH player some devices don't
support...(c;]
Todd Allcock
2009-01-24 05:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Todd Allcock
While that's true, what's the difference in data use between watching
one
Post by Todd Allcock
hour of "streaming," vs. a one hour "clip?"
If you watch a long YouTube video clip come in, it goes full bore,
storing it to your drive, until it's loaded....then, when the clip meets
the EOF, it stops....in this case freeing the phone system's data link
to a Dormant state so others can connect to it.
If you watch a real stream, say on your cable modem box, you see a
constant stream of X Kbps, depending on how intense the stream is,
coming into your system, in little spurts if it's a fast system as the
packets will have large gaps of dead time between them....out ahead of
the never-ending, never-unloading buffer in the player that keeps the
stream playing when the net, or the server, balks for whatever reason.
But at the end of the viewing period, however long it was, the same
amount of data was transferred (assuming the bitrate w
s the same) whether you downloaded the hour-long file in 10 minutes in
one shot, or over the hour in little packets. What's the difference?
Post by Larry
On a slow sellphone data link trying to watch streaming video, of
course, that ain't gonna happen on a regular basis, so the stream
downloads constantly on the overloaded system, occasionally to
regularly
Post by Larry
not being able to refill the buffer before it runs dry, playing faster
than delivery. Fast video over a sellphone data circuit is a pipe
dream. Even BT tethered to my fast laptop, the high latency is the
same.
Ok, but since mobile phones have small screens, low bit rates are
sufficient. I typically encode video for my 2.8" phone and 2-3" kid vid
players at about 250k. I'll do 500k for the 3.5" Zune and my wife's
iPhone. (Which, BTW, as much as I b*tch about, admittedly has a sh*t-hot
screen for a mobile device. Easily watchable in all but the brightest
sunlight.)
Post by Larry
Download Speed: 570 kbps (71.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 89 kbps (11.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Alltel really throttles upload to keep the gamers off,
That's not really why. Cellular data allocates so many "slots" to each
user. Those slots can be for upload or download. Every upload slot robs
you of a download slot. So instead of, say, 80k up and 560k down of a
total 640k available, (a number I've pulled out of my hindquarters just
for an example) they COULD give you 320k each way, but most of us
download more than we upload, and "320" wouldn't be as impressive for
bragging rights as 560 is. The "game" is to make downloads as fast as
possible for the brochures without making uploads as slow as dial up.
Back when T-Mo's fastest speed was GPRS, they used, IIRC, 9kbps slots- 1
for upload and 5 down, for a theoretical 45k download and 9k up!
("Realworld" was more like 7 up and 30 down.)
Post by Larry
As you can see, we're NOT going to be watching 768Kbps TV feeds under
these conditions at 9PM unless we switch the tablet to one of the
current 6 wifi hotspots (2 are mine) available with 7Mbps bandwidth.
If
Post by Larry
we were to connect to 500Kbps streaming, tonight, it would "PROBABLY"
run without balking, BUT, unlike over your cable modem, data
downloading
Post by Larry
would be a constantly-connected, full bandwidth, hour-after-hour load on
the system....which is fine, but pretty near to capacity, here.
A 90MB video clip would take (90,000KB/71.3KB per second = 1262 seconds,
21 minutes at this speed)....THEN IT WOULD STOP, unlike a real stream.
Immaterial from the cell carriers perspective- data is sent in packets.
Whether you downloaded that 90MB in 21 minutes and played back from
memory/disk or streamed it over an hour, it represents the same number of
packets and the same load on the system. This isn't like the dial-up
days when your idle connection still hogged one of the BBS' modems- with
packet data we're all connected, taking turns. The busier the system is,
the more time between our turns, and slower throughput.
Post by Larry
I can understand why sellular is terrified of users streaming and forbid
it in any device they can wrestle control of away from the
users....even
Post by Larry
by hook and crook!
I wouldn't say terrified- they'll deal with it with bandwidth caps or
throttling if/when it becomes a problem. Most people won't stream video
very long on a cellphone. Screw bandwidth problems- the BATTERIES can't
keep up! ;-)
Post by Larry
It it took an hour to download the 1 hour VIDEO CLIP, there would be no
difference in the loading on the system. But, clips, like YouTube,
usually download in much less time than it takes them to play, even on
slow sellular circuits....(c;]
Which, again, makes no difference to carrier. If the system isn't
running near full capacity, there's no problem. If it is, your download
will be slower.
Post by Larry
The other thing to think about is that
streaming users usually just leave the stream running way past when a
YouTube stream would automatically end, some whether they are actually
watching or listening to it...or not! Users with "UNLIMITED SERVICE",
like on an iPhone plan, could care less about the company's point of
view when they're forking over hundreds of dollars EXTRA each year to
the sellphone company.....for a service marked "UNLIMITED DATA".....
Who leaves a stream running on a cellphone when not being used?
Forgetting the battery life issue, if I'm somewhere where I have time to
watch an hour of video or more, why am I watching a 3" cellphone instead
of a PC or TV? The very nature of cellular usage "self-polices" data
usage, unless you're tethering, which is no longer "unlimited."
Post by Larry
Thanks, Todd, for the opportunity to point out a great use of the really
cool CUT AND PASTE facility and FLASH player some devices don't
support...(c;]
My pleasure...
Larry
2009-01-24 15:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
But at the end of the viewing period, however long it was, the same
amount of data was transferred (assuming the bitrate w
s the same) whether you downloaded the hour-long file in 10 minutes in
one shot, or over the hour in little packets. What's the difference?
Connection time.

Haven't you noticed that sellphone internet is like PPPoE on DSL? It
connects, data packets flow, it goes dormant, only holding the IP but
not really connected like your cable modem. Traffic stops, allowing
more connectivity and use.

If a constant stream of packets flows, like in real streaming, that
channel is constantly occupied, continuously, as long as the streaming
is going on. Noone else can use the connection while that's happening
and there are only so many digital channels available on a sector. I
forget how many that is but there are 24 connections on a channel at a
time on CDMA. When streaming, the phone never goes DORMANT. Noone else
gets a chance at the channel segment.

This nonsense about the data being on some completely different system
from the voice is nonsense. I didn't see any other radio equipment when
I was visiting a local sellsite. That's why VZW wanted 700 Mhz spectrum
so bad they were willing to pay for it to get TV streaming online. Of
course, that 700 Mhz streaming is one way like your ATSC digital TV.
Any number of users can listen to those streams simultaneously.

Connect to the data channel and don't do anything. After the computer
does all its software update nonsense, the network connection goes
"dormant". Let it sit that way and notice the transmitter doesn't get
warm. I think Dormant is disconnected-but-holding-this-IP until the
computer needs internet data, again. My Z6m display even says DORMANT
and PACKET DATA when it connects. As its 850 Mhz transmitter has a
slight interference with my stereo, if I position it right, I can hear
the speakers on the stereo buzz when the transmitter is on the air.
Until it switches to PACKET DATA, again, there are no transmissions,
unlike wifi which never stops broadcasting to hold its place on the air.
When we come out of DORMANT to PACKET DATA, again, I hear an initial
transmission that's 2-part, the first probably the connection command,
followed by the data. You'll only hear it once during streaming,
constant on/off/on/off/on/off as the stream flows....sucking up that
segment of the channel permanently until the stream is disconnected.

It wouldn't take much real streaming to bring it to its knees and make
other connections have no connection at all in a loaded system.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-25 08:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
This nonsense about the data being on some completely different system
from the voice is nonsense.
It's not a different system, it's just that voice calls take priority.
If the system is "full" and a voice call comes in, it'll kick off a few
data users to make room.
Dennis Ferguson
2009-01-25 10:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
This nonsense about the data being on some completely different system
from the voice is nonsense.
It's not a different system, it's just that voice calls take priority.
If the system is "full" and a voice call comes in, it'll kick off a few
data users to make room.
That might be right for GPRS, but not for EVDO (or HSPA for that
matter). For EVDO one or more (1.25 MHz wide) channels are devoted
to packet data and can't easily be turned back to voice use; it is
the fact that the packet channels are unshared, and hence not
interfered with, which allows them to use exotic modulation and
get high bit rates.

Dennis Ferguson
Todd Allcock
2009-01-25 14:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Ferguson
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
This nonsense about the data being on some completely different system
from the voice is nonsense.
It's not a different system, it's just that voice calls take
priority.
Post by Dennis Ferguson
Post by Todd Allcock
If the system is "full" and a voice call comes in, it'll kick off a few
data users to make room.
That might be right for GPRS, but not for EVDO (or HSPA for that
matter). For EVDO one or more (1.25 MHz wide) channels are devoted
to packet data and can't easily be turned back to voice use; it is
the fact that the packet channels are unshared, and hence not
interfered with, which allows them to use exotic modulation and
get high bit rates.
Dennis Ferguson
As always, Dennis, thanks for the education!
Larry
2009-01-25 16:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis Ferguson
That might be right for GPRS, but not for EVDO (or HSPA for that
matter). For EVDO one or more (1.25 MHz wide) channels are devoted
to packet data and can't easily be turned back to voice use; it is
the fact that the packet channels are unshared, and hence not
interfered with, which allows them to use exotic modulation and
get high bit rates.
Dennis Ferguson
Hmm...I never thought about it but I agree, Dennis. High speed data over
radio is awfully wide, especially in comparison to 8Kbps or 11Kbps voice
bandwidth. Great point.
Larry
2009-01-25 16:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
This nonsense about the data being on some completely different system
from the voice is nonsense.
It's not a different system, it's just that voice calls take priority.
If the system is "full" and a voice call comes in, it'll kick off a few
data users to make room.
That has never happened to me. I've never seen any kind of disconnect and
I'm on a LOT, about 20-30GB/mo. I'm not seeing it on Cricket, either,
through the mobile hot spot.
Larry
2009-01-24 15:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Ok, but since mobile phones have small screens, low bit rates are
sufficient. I typically encode video for my 2.8" phone and 2-3" kid vid
players at about 250k. I'll do 500k for the 3.5" Zune and my wife's
iPhone. (Which, BTW, as much as I b*tch about, admittedly has a sh*t-hot
screen for a mobile device. Easily watchable in all but the brightest
sunlight.)
But, when you're connected to a stream, you have no choice what speed to
run it unless your listening to a Real (the company) stream, which adjusts
speed as the server talks to your player.

All these stupid devices, including my N800s, with their damned shiny
prettyscreens are useless in any light condition. How stupid we have to
look at the content through a damned MIRROR....
Larry
2009-01-24 15:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
Download Speed: 570 kbps (71.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 89 kbps (11.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Alltel really throttles upload to keep the gamers off,
That's not really why. Cellular data allocates so many "slots" to each
user. Those slots can be for upload or download. Every upload slot robs
you of a download slot. So instead of, say, 80k up and 560k down of a
total 640k available, (a number I've pulled out of my hindquarters just
for an example) they COULD give you 320k each way, but most of us
download more than we upload, and "320" wouldn't be as impressive for
bragging rights as 560 is. The "game" is to make downloads as fast as
possible for the brochures without making uploads as slow as dial up.
Back when T-Mo's fastest speed was GPRS, they used, IIRC, 9kbps slots- 1
for upload and 5 down, for a theoretical 45k download and 9k up!
("Realworld" was more like 7 up and 30 down.)
The test only tests one way at a time. Upload is well throttled as the
connection is doing nothing else while the test is uploading. Other
systems, like my Cricket USB dongle, have much faster uploads than Alltel,
over a much smaller real estate footprint, of course. And system loading,
at least here, means nothing. Alltel EVDO is normally the same speeds in
the city as it is in the boondocks of SC where I doubt I'm sharing the
towers with 2 other people, if that, at a time.

Cricket gives me about 500-700Kbps download and 300-350Kbps upload at much
lower latency. Skype works better on Cricket through my mobile wifi router
to the tablets, than it does on BT to the Z6m on Alltel. I'm running both
at the moment, waiting for the other shoe to fall from VZW onto Alltel
customers....$60/mo for 5GB.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-25 08:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
Download Speed: 570 kbps (71.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 89 kbps (11.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
Alltel really throttles upload to keep the gamers off,
That's not really why. Cellular data allocates so many "slots" to each
user. Those slots can be for upload or download. Every upload slot robs
you of a download slot. So instead of, say, 80k up and 560k down of a
total 640k available, (a number I've pulled out of my hindquarters just
for an example) they COULD give you 320k each way, but most of us
download more than we upload, and "320" wouldn't be as impressive for
bragging rights as 560 is. The "game" is to make downloads as fast as
possible for the brochures without making uploads as slow as dial up.
Back when T-Mo's fastest speed was GPRS, they used, IIRC, 9kbps slots- 1
for upload and 5 down, for a theoretical 45k download and 9k up!
("Realworld" was more like 7 up and 30 down.)
The test only tests one way at a time. Upload is well throttled as the
connection is doing nothing else while the test is uploading.
True, because the number of slots do not change dynamically.
Post by Larry
Other
systems, like my Cricket USB dongle, have much faster uploads than Alltel,
over a much smaller real estate footprint, of course. And system loading,
at least here, means nothing. Alltel EVDO is normally the same speeds in
the city as it is in the boondocks of SC where I doubt I'm sharing the
towers with 2 other people, if that, at a time.
Cricket is probably EVDO Rev.A, whereas Alltel is probably plain old
EVDO. IIRC, the main difference was upload speed.
Larry
2009-01-24 15:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Immaterial from the cell carriers perspective- data is sent in packets.
Whether you downloaded that 90MB in 21 minutes and played back from
memory/disk or streamed it over an hour, it represents the same number of
packets and the same load on the system. This isn't like the dial-up
days when your idle connection still hogged one of the BBS' modems- with
packet data we're all connected, taking turns. The busier the system is,
the more time between our turns, and slower throughput.
I don't think that's correct, as I stated in another answer to your
message. What ties up the system is not how MUCH data flows, as how much
TIME you are connected to the system, when actual packets are flowing, and
how much TIME your device spends in DORMANT mode, which frees the channel
for sharing with other users as you're not really on the air during
DORMANT, only holding the IP so you can use it next time, clicking another
video clip file for full-speed downloading. During streaming, the phone
gets quite hot, uses a lot of battery power, and stays constantly connected
in PACKET DATA mode, hogging the connect time noone else can get to. There
are no "turns" in streaming because the link never goes DORMANT.

In the 90MB example, you'd have a constant, full-speed-as-fast-as-it-can-
be-delivered packet time for 21 minutes out of an hour. 90MB flows to
memory. During the rest of the hour, the phone sits in DORMANT mode, still
holding the IP in reserve for more use, but disconnected from the system so
for 39 minutes the system is rid of you. Downloading 90MB in streaming....
bzzt...rest...bzzt...rest...bzzt...rest constantly connected for that next
packet after the wait time, you occupy the channel for the whole hour and
noone else can share it.

What's immaterial, at least in this comparison, is the 90 MB. The
difference that's important, from the sellphone carrier's perspective, is
the difference in the delivery time on-the-air of that 90MB.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-25 08:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Todd Allcock
Immaterial from the cell carriers perspective- data is sent in packets.
Whether you downloaded that 90MB in 21 minutes and played back from
memory/disk or streamed it over an hour, it represents the same
number of packets and the same load on the system. This isn't like
the dial-up days when your idle connection still hogged one of the
BBS' modems- with packet data we're all connected, taking turns.
The busier the system is, the more time between our turns, and
slower throughput.
I don't think that's correct, as I stated in another answer to your
message. What ties up the system is not how MUCH data flows, as how
much TIME you are connected to the system, when actual packets
are flowing, and how much TIME your device spends in DORMANT
mode, which frees the channel for sharing with other users as you're
not really on the air during DORMANT, only holding the IP so you can
use it next time, clicking another video clip file for full-speed
downloading.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the carrier can squeeze other users'
packets around yours when not active, so you aren't really tying up the
whole channel when streaming low bandwidth material, since the are plenty
of "spaces" between packets.

(Dennis Ferguson, among others, can probably can correct my very
oversimplified understanding.)
Post by Larry
During streaming, the phone
gets quite hot, uses a lot of battery power, and stays constantly
connected in PACKET DATA mode, hogging the connect time noone
else can get to. There
are no "turns" in streaming because the link never goes DORMANT.
In the 90MB example, you'd have a constant, full-speed-as-fast-as-it-
can be-delivered packet time for 21 minutes out of an hour. 90MB
flows to memory. During the rest of the hour, the phone sits in
DORMANT mode, still holding the IP in reserve for more use, but
disconnected from the system so for 39 minutes the system is rid
of you. Downloading 90MB in streaming.... bzzt...rest...bzzt...
rest...bzzt...rest constantly connected for that next packet after the
wait time, you occupy the channel for
Post by Larry
the whole hour and noone else can share it.
I think you're wrong- I believe other users squeeze in during the rests
between the "bzzts..." (dontcha just love a technical conversation!) ;-)
Larry
2009-01-25 16:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
I could be mistaken, but I believe the carrier can squeeze other users'
packets around yours when not active, so you aren't really tying up the
whole channel when streaming low bandwidth material, since the are plenty
of "spaces" between packets.
(Dennis Ferguson, among others, can probably can correct my very
oversimplified understanding.)
I'm guessing, too, of course. But, why else would they be so vehemently
opposed to streaming, a protocol and net activity that could sell millions
of data accounts? They don't sell radio like XM, except crap like Vcast on
Verizon. No decent TV streams of any resolution will play over their
crappy sellphone data network, so that can't cause them distress. But,
they all make damned sure none of their devices play the normal streaming
codecs the internet broadcasters are using, many of the codec open source
and absolutely free like OGG, etc., so using them costs the companies
nothing.

I still think the motive is channel occupancy....Email and Webpages and
even audio/video clips are services where you get on for a few seconds,
download however fast, then get the hell off in DORMANT mode so they can
sell the same bandwidth your webpage download used for 50 other subscribers
while you look at it, until you click and demand another channel for a few
more seconds until that next webpage and its spam load downloads....then
back to dormant.
News
2009-01-25 16:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Todd Allcock
I could be mistaken, but I believe the carrier can squeeze other users'
packets around yours when not active, so you aren't really tying up the
whole channel when streaming low bandwidth material, since the are plenty
of "spaces" between packets.
(Dennis Ferguson, among others, can probably can correct my very
oversimplified understanding.)
I'm guessing, too, of course. But, why else would they be so vehemently
opposed to streaming, a protocol and net activity that could sell millions
of data accounts? They don't sell radio like XM, except crap like Vcast on
Verizon. No decent TV streams of any resolution will play over their
crappy sellphone data network, so that can't cause them distress. But,
they all make damned sure none of their devices play the normal streaming
codecs the internet broadcasters are using, many of the codec open source
and absolutely free like OGG, etc., so using them costs the companies
nothing.
I still think the motive is channel occupancy....Email and Webpages and
even audio/video clips are services where you get on for a few seconds,
download however fast, then get the hell off in DORMANT mode so they can
sell the same bandwidth your webpage download used for 50 other subscribers
while you look at it, until you click and demand another channel for a few
more seconds until that next webpage and its spam load downloads....then
back to dormant.
Quite clearly. Until all use is fee-metered, frees up bandwidth ... for
even greater fee potential.
Larry
2009-01-25 17:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Quite clearly. Until all use is fee-metered, frees up bandwidth ... for
even greater fee potential.
The USED to sell it all by the megabyte and have never really gotten over
how incredibly stupid that was as noone bought it.
News
2009-01-25 17:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by News
Quite clearly. Until all use is fee-metered, frees up bandwidth ... for
even greater fee potential.
The USED to sell it all by the megabyte and have never really gotten over
how incredibly stupid that was as noone bought it.
And of course they STILL sell it by the kb -- if you use roaming data!
Larry
2009-01-25 18:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by News
Post by Larry
Post by News
Quite clearly. Until all use is fee-metered, frees up bandwidth ...
for even greater fee potential.
The USED to sell it all by the megabyte and have never really gotten
over how incredibly stupid that was as noone bought it.
And of course they STILL sell it by the kb -- if you use roaming data!
Great weapon to prevent data use on someone else's revenue stream, isn't
it?

Carrying any data hot device to another area, or especially country, is
just financial suicide.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-26 04:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by News
And of course they STILL sell it by the kb -- if you use roaming data!
Great weapon to prevent data use on someone else's revenue stream, isn't
it?
While true, what's wrong with that? Do you expect your home service
provider to get stuck with your roaming bill?

If Waffle House gave you free breakfast for life in return for the free
advertising you provide for them here, would you expect to eat at IHOP
for free and tell them to send the bill to Waffle House? ;-)
Post by Larry
Carrying any data hot device to another area, or especially country, is
just financial suicide.
Unless you can shut off the cellular data. My phone didn't run up a
roaming bill in Cancun- I turned off the cell data and used WiFi access
only.
Kurt
2009-01-26 15:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
Carrying any data hot device to another area, or especially country, is
just financial suicide.
Unless you can shut off the cellular data. My phone didn't run up a
roaming bill in Cancun- I turned off the cell data and used WiFi access
only.
Only a shame that the phone companies count on people not doing this.
Same with how they have the most expensive long distance plans as their
default service.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Larry
2009-01-27 19:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Unless you can shut off the cellular data. My phone didn't run up a
roaming bill in Cancun- I turned off the cell data and used WiFi access
only.
How many mobile web owners are smart enough to do that BEFORE that first
$500 sellphone bill arrives?

How many iPhone owners?....(c;]
Todd Allcock
2009-01-28 00:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Todd Allcock
Unless you can shut off the cellular data. My phone didn't run up a
roaming bill in Cancun- I turned off the cell data and used WiFi access
only.
How many mobile web owners are smart enough to do that BEFORE that first
$500 sellphone bill arrives?
Well, you do have to be a little smarter than your phone, I suspect...
Post by Larry
How many iPhone owners?....(c;]
Probably most, after the well publicized horror stories! ;-)
Jon Ribbens
2009-01-28 01:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
How many iPhone owners?....(c;]
Probably most, after the well publicized horror stories! ;-)
Nearly all I should imagine, since it has a handy "disable roaming
data" option, that defaults to "disabled", with a nice long label by
the option explaining how you can incur "substantial roaming charges"
if you enable it.

Don't tell Larry though, I understand it can be dangerous to challenge
a person's psychotic delusions.
Todd Allcock
2009-01-28 04:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Ribbens
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
How many iPhone owners?....(c;]
Probably most, after the well publicized horror stories! ;-)
Nearly all I should imagine, since it has a handy "disable roaming
data" option, that defaults to "disabled", with a nice long label by
the option explaining how you can incur "substantial roaming charges"
if you enable it.
Don't tell Larry though, I understand it can be dangerous to challenge
a person's psychotic delusions.
Still, just to be safe, I munged the cellular APN on both my wife's
iPhone and my Windows Mobile phone when we left the country, even though
I made sure the "data roaming off" option was properly set.

Old habits die hard!

Larry
2009-01-25 16:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
I think you're wrong- I believe other users squeeze in during the rests
between the "bzzts..." (dontcha just love a technical conversation!) ;-)
I'd agree with you but the phone releases the channel to DORMANT way too
slow and you'd wreak havoc if you had to reconnect every time between bzzts
and be bitching up a storm as that would make it SO slow as to be useless.

I don't think the phone is fast enough to release the channel after this
bzzt, then reconnect to get the next bzzt stream in a timely manner. The
phone stays in PACKET DATA, the connected channel-hogging ON mode, for a
good 15-20 seconds (I never timed it) before going DORMANT, which I assume
releases the channel but not the IP as the IP doesn't change. (I can read
the phone's IP on my tablet's network home screen applet, even seeing how
much data I'm using and flipping to the internal connection if I want.)
The IP stays no matter how long DORMANT runs. It changes, of course, when
you go from one system over into the next as you travel away from town and
it has to reconnect to a different CO.
Dennis Ferguson
2009-01-25 11:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Todd Allcock
Immaterial from the cell carriers perspective- data is sent in packets.
Whether you downloaded that 90MB in 21 minutes and played back from
memory/disk or streamed it over an hour, it represents the same number of
packets and the same load on the system. This isn't like the dial-up
days when your idle connection still hogged one of the BBS' modems- with
packet data we're all connected, taking turns. The busier the system is,
the more time between our turns, and slower throughput.
I don't think that's correct, as I stated in another answer to your
message. What ties up the system is not how MUCH data flows, as how much
TIME you are connected to the system, when actual packets are flowing, and
how much TIME your device spends in DORMANT mode, which frees the channel
for sharing with other users as you're not really on the air during
DORMANT, only holding the IP so you can use it next time, clicking another
video clip file for full-speed downloading. During streaming, the phone
gets quite hot, uses a lot of battery power, and stays constantly connected
in PACKET DATA mode, hogging the connect time noone else can get to. There
are no "turns" in streaming because the link never goes DORMANT.
No, Todd is right. With EVDO your phone is listening to a single
CDMA channel on which the packets to many data users are sent, one
after the other. Your phone listens for the packets destined to
itself and ignores the packets for others. If your phone isn't
receiving a packet it isn't using the channel and someone else's
phone can receive a packet instead. Your phone remains "connected"
to the network continuously, but uses no resources when it isn't
sending or receiving packets.

Measuring the total traffic volume is a reasonable way to measure
your consumption of the network's resources (it isn't perfect since
if you are further from the tower it costs the network more to send
a given number of bytes to you, but it is a decent guess). It doesn't
matter if the packets are close together or further apart since others
can use the spaces between them.

On the other topic I'm pretty sure Alltel was only running EVDO Rev. 0
while Cricket is probably Rev. A. Rev. A increases the potential
bandwidth of the reverse channel considerably (from 153 kbps to 1.8 Mbps)
and reduces latency a lot. See, e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution-Data_Optimized

Dennis Ferguson
Larry
2009-01-24 15:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Who leaves a stream running on a cellphone when not being used?
Forgetting the battery life issue, if I'm somewhere where I have time to
watch an hour of video or more, why am I watching a 3" cellphone instead
of a PC or TV? The very nature of cellular usage "self-polices" data
usage, unless you're tethering, which is no longer "unlimited."
Many. I don't care how long it runs in the car because both the tablet
and phone are plugged into the 12VDC power teats. I stream Kix Country:
http://www.kixcountry.com.au
plugged into the big stereo in the truck or the car's audio system on
almost every trip. I can't stand the constant stream of commercial crap
pouring out of American radio stations, 3/4 of their airtime after the
FCC fired the engineers who forced them to actually play CONTENT, any
more. Mobile streaming of a Xiph or Shoutcast free stream is a great
traveling companion, now that we can roam. I'd drop sellphone data
service if I couldn't have it. I can't use mobile internet webpages and
email while I'm driving...(c;]

I know lots of people who are streaming audio while driving around this
way. I think it's one reason subscription satellite radio is nearly
bankrupt. The tablet has thousands of radio channels of hundreds of
genres to choose from from every country on the planet, now. Even RIAA
couldn't stop it for them....we merely switch countries. The finest
streaming comes from Switzerland, in my opinion. They have an amazing
range of stations to listen to where you hardly ever hear anyone even
mentioning what station you're listening to....instead of some jerk
saying "News Talk 1250, W-T-M-A" over a loud promo music crap...56 times
an hour! Evidently Swiss people are much smarter than Americans and
KNOW what the station's callsign is and what frequency their radios are
tuned to! Americans must be CONSTANTLY reminded, ad nauseum, so they
don't forget over their 90 second memory span. God I hate that constant
station promo crap!

During one talkshow on WTMA, long time ago, Dan Moon, who ran talk radio
here for 20 years before he retired, asked the listeners to call in and
tell him what they never wanted to hear again on WTMA. I called and
waited. When my turn came, I said, "Dan, if noone ever said on the air
'News Talk 1250, WTMA' again everyone listening would feel just
wonderful. We all know, since 1939, what the stations callsign and
frequency are and we don't need to be reminded of it 70 times an hour."
Dan isn't normally speechless, but he was then! There was even dead air
for maybe 5 seconds before he clicked me off and picked up the next
caller...who forgot what he wanted to say and started a 20 minute string
of callers who wholeheartedly agreed with me! We simply took over the
station and wouldn't let him go on around my call....(c;]

Streaming lets me avoid the craptrap American broadcasting has
become....
Larry
2009-01-24 15:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Que es 4phun
Post by Larry
Thanks, Todd, for the opportunity to point out a great use of the
really
Post by Larry
cool CUT AND PASTE facility and FLASH player some devices don't
support...(c;]
My pleasure...
(c;]

This'll be fun to watch....
Larry
2009-01-24 02:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd Allcock
Post by Larry
NO apps to connect to intensive downloading services like USENET.
Usenet it plays are TEXT ONLY web-based services, like Google, no NNTP
clients I've seen with download-decode-assemble (like WinRAR compilers)
exist. iPhone's never going to connect to ALT.BINARIES.anything to get
music and movies, which would make Apple puke up applesauce somethin'
just awful.
True, but then again, that's not really the point of an unlimited on-
phone data plan, is it? The point is that the user doesn't have to worry
if he'll be socked with a bazillion dollar bill at the end of the month.
But, it kinda moots pay so much money for what little data the damned thing
actually uses....unlimited or not.
Loading...