Slashdot Mirror
A Possible Cause of AT&T's Wireless Clog — Configuration Errors
AT&T customers (iPhone users notably among them) have seen some wireless congestion in recent months; Brough Turner thinks the trouble might be self-inflicted. According to Turner, the poor throughput and connection errors can be chalked up to "configuration errors specifically, congestion collapse induced by misconfigured buffers in their mobile core network." His explanation makes an interesting read.
stfu dickface.
They keep cost and quality low because that is what their customers actually want, or at least, that is what they are willing to pay for.
[CITATION NEEDED] You'd have an argument if AT&T was the lowest cost provider, but they aren't. MetroPCS is. Also this doesn't make sense from a market perspective either. You have the leading smart device on arguably the worst national network, yet AT&T continues to get subscribers almost exclusively due to iPhone sells. This makes a scarce resource -- AT&T's network -- even more scarce. Supply and Demand tells us that customers would be willing to pay more to access that network, especially given that demand isn't just steady, but steadily growing.
To quote Red from Shawshank Redemption, "I do believe you're talking out your ass."
So you think design, ease of use, and the In factor have nothing to do with Apple's success ?
FYI, the iPhone is rather feature-poor. Look at how in can't break the Asian markets, which are more sophisticated. Browsing is easy and fun, the interface is nice, iTunes is very convenient... But even bluetooth profiles are incomplete, no multitasking....
Again, in my experience, build quality is not that good. Only objective figures will settle that question.
Finally, price, you must be kidding. Apple's kit, be it MP3 players, desktops, laptops, or phones, is one, if not THE, most expensive out there. Only Sony is consistently more expensive that Apple.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Give me a break. Apple's products are overpriced pieces of crap and competitive alternatives exist. While the overall quality may be better than average the fact remains they disable features left and right- and put restrictions that inhibit use to the point most products are junk. Apple is all about style. If you want to be "cool" it is what you get. It is just like Android in the GNU/Linux / open source community. I'm actually ashamed to own one. If it wasn't for the fact someone else filled out a entry form on my behalf at LinuxCon I certainly wouldn't have bought one. Sadly we don't have any solid open phones. Android might beat Apple due to artificial restrictions- but it certainly isn't that great either. Despite my disappointment in how far along the Freerunner is (although it is improving) at least with it I have little concern my data is at risk (From Apple, Google, or my cellular provider. They don't "own"- or control my phone beyond the base necessities to operate.), my use of it will be restricted (Apple & other cellular provider subsided phones), etc. I'll stick my ageing late 1990's era Palm Pilot to store my schedule & contacts, an N810 for wifi, and an ageing low-end basic LG phone until the Freerunner or something half-decent comes around that I'm not screwed by worse than my ageing tech. While all of my ageing tech suck for various reasons each has their advantages. The Palm Pilot sucks cause it runs non-free software-but at least I control the data, has decent battery, and it is thin/reliable, the LG just does what it is suppose to do-makes calls-and battery life doesn't suck too bad (suchs cause of the non-free software though), and the N810 is best thing for free 802.11 wifi /w a decent keyboard and screen but sucks cause of the non-free wifi chipset. But all this is better than a piece of shit iPhone or Google phone. I couldn't even operate the unlocked phone without a Google account. Now- in Google defence the assumption is that you will be utilizing its services- so it isn't as bad as Apple- but still doesn't fly in my book.
You might think that you hold it high and mighty over techies, but there does seem to be a lot that you don't understand in my post. For a start.
Sometimes 'good enough' really is the best option for the business as a whole. Techies and engineers often have a hard time accepting this until they've actually run a department, but it's true.
Totally agree.
If we have $10m today, we might benefit more by doing 10 $1m projects 'pretty well' than by doing 7 $1.4m projects 'perfectly', for a number of reasons.
Yes and no. It's not that simple. If doing 10 $1M projects doesn't raise support costs drastically, then yes, it's great. My problem is when you run 10 $1M projects which then cost a half million each to get to an acceptable level. As a business that means $5M less next year to spend, it might mean having to hire more support staff, or it might mean that the development budget is smaller next time round due to a tighter overall number. You are so close to my point actually, it's almost funny. If you did say do the 7 $1.4M projects and didn't have to spend the huge increase in support, yes you would be three projects down on the possible, but you would be $5M up, which at your same estimate of $1.4M is around 3.5 projects. That's a net gain. This is my point and why I often argue with the program office.
It could get something to market faster... it could be that the marketplace cares deeply about some features, but doesn't care quite so much about initial quality, it could be that it's just better to run 10 experiments and see which pan out well enough to put extra money in them later... it could just be that nobody is happy, but there's simply not enough cash to do what's really wanted.... so it's do it 'good enough' now, or not doing it at all.
I mean... there are shitloads of valid business reasons to purposefully do things a bit half-assed. Especially in very competitive markets, where there just isn't enough margin to pay for doing things "perfectly", or in markets that aren't meaningfully differentiated on quality.
I work for a multinational retailer, and the projects I am involved in are mainly system tweaking dealing with improved measurement of stock, forecasts, reporting and analysis of our data. Yes, it's important to be able to get to new opportunities quickly and take advantage of new information, I actually sit within the business side, so I totally understand this, but not if it comes at the cost of other failures of other systems which are unintentional or unexpected. I am surrounded by business users (who are funding these projects for the most part) and while they *understandably* want to have cheap and efficient projects but they don't want to lose functionality of current systems or have projects so poorly implemented that the gains are far below project expectations.
I spend my life fighting with people like you... people who think I don't understand, or I'm shortsighted, or I'm just a robot. But here's the thing: I think *YOU* are the idiot.
The funny thing is that I don't think you are shortsighted. Yes, I don't think you always see the implications of poor implementation, which in some people's eyes will term you short-sighted. However, I look at all the projects that come within our area with a fresh set of eyes. If the project is sound, then great, roll with it, if it's going to be a headache for everyone from the business through to IT support, then no, re-budget and look at it, or keep the business informed of the shortfalls within the project plan manage expectations to the point where the business is well aware that it will be a rough ride. You thinking I am an idiot honestly doesn't help anyone - especially if you are actually trying to be productive for the company you work for. If you are not as technical as people giving advice and explaining things, it's not a bad thing, it's a different set of s
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!