Slashdot Mirror
No 3G for HP Until 2007
An anonymous reader writes to tell us CNet is reporting that HP will not be bringing 3G support to any of their new 'smart phones' until at least 2007. From the article: "[HP] cites the costs associated with the service, coupled with the fact that 3G's killer app -- TV and video streaming -- isn't yet viable on mobile phones as the primary reasons for its decision. '3G is still only occupying 3% of the world pie,' HP's Vice-President for Consumer Products and Mobile Business Group in the Asia-Pacific region, Chin-Teik SEE, told CNET.com.au at the company's 'magical mobility launch' event in Hong Kong last week."
That's news to me!
SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
Are going to think like that 3G will never happen :)
-Mark
Is the logical application of 3G bandwidth really streaming video? Maybe if you are the operator charging per packet!
The logical application of higher bandwidth on mobile phones is just an extension of current phone capabilities. Namely, increased mail functionality like graphics and graphical icons, and music downloads. In the business sphere, it makes sense to utilize that bandwidth for file transfers from one mobile phone to another.
But streaming video wasn't ever really high on anyone's list of MUST HAVE functionality. At least not on the user side.
2007 is only ten months away.
really 867993
Karma schkarma
Will 3G bring us cheaper and faster wireless internet access, or is the bandwidth not high enough?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
I see ads for this everywhere, but I've never seen ANYONE making use of this service. I don't even know when I would if I wanted to. My phone is for talking to people with and maybe SMS. I don't use the internet functionality because the rates are insane.
Telcos don't get it. Provide bandwidth, and let people build services that run on that bandwidth. Being greedy with the apps.. means you get to put a great big 3G waste of money in your pipe (and smoke it).
..don't panic
The US cellphone market ( and most of the Canadian one as well) is now so irrelevant to the world market, that it really does not matter.
CDMA, TDMA, but not GSM for the most part.
Sure, we have a couple of GSM providers, but on an alien frequency (1900).
Add to that the greed of the N. American phone and cellphone providers, and not much in the way of progress is likely to happen here.
So, 3G will slowly push ahead in Asia, where all the tech now is, Europe will follow, and that's all folks.
In the meantime tech like WIMAX will progress, people will soon have portables using that or similar, VoIP on wireless will take off, and pretty soon cell phones as a separate device for talking (only) will become obsolete.
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
No doubt it should be cheaper, I've taken a 3G card and ran 4 extensions off it @ 59/month and not even used all the bandwidth. So why's one line still costing $60 and up, b/c the consumers will pay it...
you won't be watching a full football or cricket match," Chin-Teik told CNET.com.au.
t .asp seems like 3 is already there
Maybe he should take a look at the competition first http://planet3.three.com.au/mobileTV/sport_cricke
Common sense is not so common
Put it this way: the music industry promised us that CDs would bring cheaper music. The phone people haven't even hinted as much. I think "no" would be a safe assumption.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
HP's stance is not completely on the level. Yes, for the GSM world, including the US, 3G is not really here yet and pricing is also steep for data. But for CDMA, 3G is very much here (Verizon and Sprint) and pricing of 3G (EVDO) for handsets is very reasonable ($15/mo). And there are several decent multimedia and smartphones that support CDMA/EVDO (3G) already, with more on the way. So it is HP that is not keeping up with the market (at least for CDMA in the US).
Do these morons really think I want to pay them to watch 160x120 videos of the black eyed peas on my phone? This is not the killer app you are looking for!
I dont know about Asia, or the rest of Europe, but I know France already has 3G.
The 3G coverage is still pretty small (Paris and most big cities I think) but 3G phones are being marketed there (mostly high end phones).
As for the services, apparently its mostly TV on your mobile and faster internet speeds.
As for the US, The first US cell phone provider (Cingular)is using GSM, on both 800 and 1900. (Europe is using 900 and 1800), so its not that alien at all. They also have started deploying UMTS (aka 3G) in a few select market.
Basically today in the US it seem to turn into a battle between Cingular (GSM - 54M customers) and Verizon (CDMA - 51M customers), after that you get Sprint (CDMA - ~47M) and T-Mobile(GSM - ~20M) and thats about it for nationwide providers.
So far, you probably still have better geographic coverage with CDMA networks, but as far as demographic coverage its going to be pretty much the same.
Telcos don't get it. Provide bandwidth, and let people build services that run on that bandwidth.
No, actually they do get it. A one way ticket to obsolescence is just being a bandwidth provider. Ask any mid-level dialup ISP from the 90s how they're doing today now that Comcast and SBC have deployed broadband. Where do you think wireless providers will be if someone actually deploys wi-fi throughout a city, or a new technology comes along that provides 5mbit download speeds anywhere?
That's why every wireless provider... scratch that... every media provider of any kind... is trying to bring added value content to the consumer. Ringtones, portable video, SMS: these are all services desperately trying to avoid being just another bandwidth provider. What do you think all of those DSL deals with Yahoo, or Comcast ON-Demand is all about? Bandwidth always gets cheaper until it becomes commoditized. Telcos have to stay ahead of that curve and becomes content providers. So when someone else says they can get a faster line than Comcast to your house, you'll say "Aww, but it doesn't have On-Demand?"
THAT is the point of VCast and every other lame attempt to avoid becoming just pure bandwidth providers.
Australia's biggest carrier Telstra have written off WiMax and are killing their CDMA network to replace it with a 3G HSDPA service running on the back of its GSM network.
Although the network has a much larger range then WiMax, the bandwidth won't be cheap and it looks like Australia is going to go through the same crap it has gone through Wired Broadband, suffering poor bandwidth at high prices and a very slow adoption rate.
Hopefully startup's like Unwired who are investing in WiMax infrastructure manage to get enough business before thier costs send them broke, its hard competing with monopolies like Telstra, but if Australian communications are to have any decent competitive future it has to be done.
In South Africa 3G networks are becoming more mainstream. The cellular provider here, Vodacom, has set up the pricing structure as follows:
* 3G video calls are charged at the same rate as your current voice rates. That's very forward thinking in my opinion, as it means there is no cost differential between making a voice call or a video call. Video calling is great, don't knock it till you've tried it. I'm hearing impaired and the streaming quality of 3G is so good that I can lipread the person at the other end and have a proper conversation; something I've never been able to do until 3G and 3G cellular phones were introduced (I'm using a Sony Ericsson V600i fyi)
* 3G data usage is charged at the rate of R2/mb, which is around 0.32 USD per megabyte. That's for out-of-bundle rates, so if you signed up for a data bundle, the per megabyte rate would be even lower. Data speeds are unbelievably fast - last week I had to retrieve an email attachment in the client basement parking (prior to a meeting with the client). Attachment was 2Mb in size, it took less than a minute to download it. I have noticed, however, that this depends on how crowded a 3G cell area is - the more 3G users, the slower the speeds.
The next technology on the horizon that will replace 3G is HSPDA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) which in theory should offer around 2Mbit/sec. Until then, 3G is a very good stepping stone that will last for a few years yet, and I would think that manufacturers who don't hop onto the 3G bandwagon reasonably early stand to lose a lot of their potential marketshare.
Cheers
The hp nc6140 already has a 3G ev-do verizon cell modem in it.9 57-64295-89315-321838-f33-1809460.html
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/321
"not yet viable?" hmm... tell that to my Motorola A835 (Three Network Australia) c.2004, which is dated but still working fine, video and all.
I have a normal GPRS mobile, the internet stuff is useful but not a killer.
For me the useful things my current phone (Sony Ericsson K750i) does are the camera (2 megapixel) and the MP3 player (1 gig capacity). Means I carry one thing in my pockeet instead of three.
The real killer app for me is the ability to control my PC with it over bluetooth, handy for presentations and stuff, and for the look on peoples face when the PC suddenly gets a mind of its own.
The most I've ever used the internet access for is to check football (soccer) results on a Saturday afternoon when I wasn't near a TV.
The old HP brought us the HP 65. What was the market for that? 3%? No, it was 0%, since the product had never been made or marketed. It new and exciting.
The new HP is worried about "nascent markets", and is delaying enabling products.
The old HP brought us RPN, and some fine diagnostic kit, that was new and exciting.
The new HP brings us reasonable office printers. I guess it isn't nascent; I like my HP 3015.
They are sure boring now, which is sad because HP is a melange of companies that sure were not boring. HP: first in micro tech, diagnostics, DEC: first in minis, COMPAQ: first in PC cloners.
It looks like first becomes last after two mergers.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
The real difficulty here is power consumption. Most 3G radios use 2Wh where as a GMS/GPRS can use less than 1Wh. Combine this with a high power XScale processor and you going to have a short battery life.
Perhaps, next generation of 3G radios will provide longer battery life. After all there is only so much one can do with a 3Wh battery.
The two major GSM operators in the US, T-Mobile and Cingular, are at different stages and have different policies. T-Mobile is rolling out EDGE (technically 3G, but relatively slow. It's IDSL to UMTS/EVDO's ADSL), because it's incremental to GSM. It seems to be in most major areas, from my experience. T-Mobile's pricing for EDGE is the same as for GPRS - free for a theoretically port blocked service (SSH, HTTP, and HTTPS work fine), $20 a month for a non-blocked service (behind NAT, or restricted to a certain number of connections, none of which are incoming, your choice, though), plus the price of a regular monthy talk plan.
Cingular is rolling out a variant of UMTS (and has EDGE pretty much everywhere too), albeit on wierd frequencies because the FCC hasn't yet finished the work on freeing the relevent frequencies. This is less of a problem with the CDMA2000 systems, largely because nobody buys an IS95 phone and expects it to work outside of the US anyway (it will in a few areas, but not many.) What Cingular hasn't done yet is start to really market their UMTS based services, whereas Sprint and Verizon both are doing so. Cingular's unlimited service is relatively expensive ($80, IIRC), but it is here, it's rolled out to a significant part of the country, and I suspect they're not marketing it yet because they really don't know what people would want to use it for.
In short, HP's talking out of its arse. 3G, in various forms, is available across most parts of America, with both the world wide open standard UMTS (3GSM), and Qualcomm's proprietary system IS-95 (CDMA2000), well supported. HP might be waiting for everyone in the US to agree on a particular standard, but they're going to lose if they do. 3G will probably never settle down on a particular technology, even Cingular didn't go right for "regular" UMTS, going for HSDPA from the start. Meanwhile WiMax will become increasingly competitive too. If that's HP's reason, they've just announced their long-term withdrawl from relevence.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.