The quality is suboptimal as was shown with the review.
The latency sucks with a LIGHTLY loaded system network. It's marginal with the current number of subscribers. When you start getting close to capacity on their end, the latency will go to hell in a handbasket.
The bandwidth requirements will kill you AND them (With their stated bandwidth requirements, you need an OC192 to provide their current levels of quality in latency for 6000 simultaneous subscribers, give or take a couple hundred. Do the math there.)
No, they won't "have to do" anything at all. We already have the situation where they're flogging HIGH bandwidth stuff and they've got caps on landline and mobile internet access.
If you think any single application's going to force them to change the caps anytime soon, I've got this nice oceanside property on the Florida coast to sell you...
The high cost of real-time and "trusted" Operating Systems (which would have been far better choices) is also responsible.
The reason they're "expensive" is because of the efforts to try to ensure secure and reliable operation in the face of attackers. Don't be laying the blame at the feet of the OSes- lay it at the feet of the cheap people that sought to maximize profits while ignoring the risks involved with the choices they were making.
They do not "assume" anything for their customers. However they do strongly encourage air-gap, and frankly so would I. A SCADA system controlling the power grid should never have an Internet connection. It should never need one. If it must have this, you have something seriously wrong with your design.
Go check out the Smart Grid Interoperability Standard over at NIST sometime...
There's a reason AT&T lost their little lawsuit over the "There's a Map For That" ad campaign that Verizon ran. There's a reason I don't use AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile- I use the "slower" 3G in more places than the others offer.
Since that's the case, I can't very well use an OpenMoko phone until someone makes a CDMA one and then Verizon decides to honor their publicly stated commitment for an "Open Network" that allows me to bring that phone over to their network. I can't as readily take the access hit for the things I do with the phone and go to another network that I could use an OpenMoko phone on.
Heh... Won't wash. You can have the service without the device. You're on the hook for getting another unit to use the service if you lose or destroy it. If it were directly coupled like you implied there, they'd have to SUPPLY you a new unit outright under all cases.
It's not coupled, even though they'll try to run that one up the flagpole all the same.
And if you leave before then, they get that magical lower price back out of you in early termination fees.
They "sold" you that phone. Assisted ownership doesn't get them the rights you're ascribing to them. Would you consider it acceptable to do the same thing to a car, fridge, etc. without at least disclosing the fact that they're doing this, UP-FRONT, first? If your answer is "yes", I've got a bunch of things to sell you, I think you'll like and I know I will. If the answer is "no", you need to question why you think it's "okay" for the phone companies to do that and not so for other companies.
Actually, you don't need to root the phone to unlock it's data. It's going to mostly put it in the transflash inside the device- since there's some tight limits on space (Something like 256-512Mb on the SoC, if I'm not mistaken...). And the data's not encrypted on the device and rooting it wouldn't do anything other than allow you to do custom modifications to the OS itself- i.e. tethering things into a WiFi hotspot or over the USB...all without paying Verizon their exorbitant extra fees for the privilege...
In short, this isn't a security measure in the manner you're thinking it is. It's a security measure in that they don't want you using anything other than official baseline firmware on the device. It's not your phone even though you paid good money for it and they described it as a sale.
Yep. And you can rest assured, since it's a smartphone, someone, somewhere will find a social engineering exploit to trick people into zapping their phones this way.
If they've put eFuse stuff on the phone, you might be able tapdance around the issue a bit- but the odds are good that if you're modding the phone you'll brick it. And it's liable to brick a few un-modded phones as well. There was a reason they quit using it a while back (this stuff is from the early part the last decade...)- and I'm kind of surprised they brought it back on this phone.
Sure they will... But I don't appreciate having them try to transform it more into a rental of the device than a sale- and then framing it in as a sale. I'm sure there's other people that'll view it the same way as I.
Sadly, I'm fairly sure Verizon asked Moto to do this- they always seem to find a way to miss the point and try to assert "control" over everything.
Ah... I guess I won't be buying a DroidX then. Sad, really... I was looking forward to getting one when the contract was up on my Droid.
And I've been very happy with my Droid. Now, one wonders...was this done to suit Verizon or if it was on Moto's own thinking that it was done. I might not have modded my phone when I got it, but doing things like this are a real put-off. I bought the phone, it's mine to do with as I see fit- and putting in things like this take that away from me. It turns it into Motorola's device or Verizon's device and I'm just renting it. Sorry, you SOLD me a phone guys and if you're concerned about "user experience" or "risks to the network" design the damn phone to not need to be concerned about EITHER- and anything else is lying to the customer outright.
It's partly that, partly that the "misinformed" aren't just that, there's more going on and, while I won't get into details, telling those classes of people are going to be likely to fight harder to hold on to their beliefs since they're not based upon facts...they're based upon feelings. When facts follow feelings, you will have no end to trouble and there's little convincing those sorts of people of ANYTHING that they don't feel is to be the truth.
Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't buy their line directly like you're doing.
It's entirely too convenient and took them too long to come up with this as an answer for me to wholly accept it as the cause. But then it's in vogue to bash the US, even in the US, these days.
Considering that it's not too much more difficult to slap the SDTV interfaces onto a current era video card (C'mon- ATI and NVidia did it for YEARS as it was...) in addition to the HDMI/DisplayPort/DVI/VGA interface stuff we're currently using, that's bunk. The middle-to-high end cards right at the moment are much more muscular than the current crop of console's GPU hardware and run $100-150 without the extra hardware and would only add about $20-30 on to that to add the other interfaces.
Check the price there. Cheaper than even a Wii. Sure, you'll need to factor in the costs of the "crap" PC, but the thing is that you can end up with a x86 gaming rig with this config for about what you'd pay for a PS3- with a similar result. If you have an ARM Cortex-A9 CPU based design (not an SoC like they're currently doing, but a real motherboard based machine...) you could end up spending slightly less for roughly the same with only the GPU burning up most of the juice in the machine. Once you've done that, the costs of the base stay the same for quite a while and the GPU card gets periodic upgrades. Done right, you can have a "consistent" environment for the game studios and publishers to produce for, but none of the royalties owed to the console maker. Unfortunately, for pretty much everyone except the console makers, the publishers are enamored with DRM and with this platform the DRM would be less "solid" or nonexistent and, well, "we can't have that now".
It's not what you think that scotches the idea in the short-term.
Slashdot Mirror
And equally unfortunately, it's only available to some carriers as it doesn't support all the right frequencies and is a GSM type phone.
The key pieces that make the phone go are under the GPLv2.
Heh... It's just more stuff that fails the sniff test on OnLive.
Not a single thing from them has passed a sniff test- it all smells like BS.
It's not FUD.
The quality is suboptimal as was shown with the review.
The latency sucks with a LIGHTLY loaded system network. It's marginal with the current number of subscribers. When you start getting close to capacity on their end, the latency will go to hell in a handbasket.
The bandwidth requirements will kill you AND them (With their stated bandwidth requirements, you need an OC192 to provide their current levels of quality in latency for 6000 simultaneous subscribers, give or take a couple hundred. Do the math there.)
No, they won't "have to do" anything at all. We already have the situation where they're flogging HIGH bandwidth stuff and they've got caps on landline and mobile internet access.
If you think any single application's going to force them to change the caps anytime soon, I've got this nice oceanside property on the Florida coast to sell you...
The reason they're "expensive" is because of the efforts to try to ensure secure and reliable operation in the face of attackers. Don't be laying the blame at the feet of the OSes- lay it at the feet of the cheap people that sought to maximize profits while ignoring the risks involved with the choices they were making.
Go check out the Smart Grid Interoperability Standard over at NIST sometime...
They're doing it all the time.
Considering the reliability of Windows...I'd probably choose to deploy one of the FOSS HMI systems over the commercial ones.
It doesn't matter if you build a fortress- if you build the same on a foundation of shifting sands.
Not even that was DRM.
DRM is like Steam where they can revoke your use of the game by remote the next time it connects up to their servers.
DRM is like the BS that got done recently where the game won't let you play if it can't phone home.
Options he says...
There's a reason AT&T lost their little lawsuit over the "There's a Map For That" ad campaign that Verizon ran.
There's a reason I don't use AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile- I use the "slower" 3G in more places than the others offer.
Since that's the case, I can't very well use an OpenMoko phone until someone makes a CDMA one and then Verizon decides to honor their publicly stated commitment for an "Open Network" that allows me to bring that phone over to their network. I can't as readily take the access hit for the things I do with the phone and go to another network that I could use an OpenMoko phone on.
Oh, no... The carriers are the ones that think that as much as Moto- else they'd not offer the phones up for sale.
Oh, I'm sure I'll be considering an HTC phone in the future as I'm one of those selfsame developers you refer to.
Heh... Won't wash. You can have the service without the device. You're on the hook for getting another unit to use the service if you lose or destroy it. If it were directly coupled like you implied there, they'd have to SUPPLY you a new unit outright under all cases.
It's not coupled, even though they'll try to run that one up the flagpole all the same.
HTC's high-end is on the short list right now. I just wish they did a hardware keyboard- it's nicer and a bit more usable than the on-screen ones.
And if you leave before then, they get that magical lower price back out of you in early termination fees.
They "sold" you that phone. Assisted ownership doesn't get them the rights you're ascribing to them. Would you consider it acceptable to do the same thing to a car, fridge, etc. without at least disclosing the fact that they're doing this, UP-FRONT, first? If your answer is "yes", I've got a bunch of things to sell you, I think you'll like and I know I will. If the answer is "no", you need to question why you think it's "okay" for the phone companies to do that and not so for other companies.
Actually, you don't need to root the phone to unlock it's data. It's going to mostly put it in the transflash inside the device- since there's some tight limits on space (Something like 256-512Mb on the SoC, if I'm not mistaken...). And the data's not encrypted on the device and rooting it wouldn't do anything other than allow you to do custom modifications to the OS itself- i.e. tethering things into a WiFi hotspot or over the USB...all without paying Verizon their exorbitant extra fees for the privilege...
In short, this isn't a security measure in the manner you're thinking it is. It's a security measure in that they don't want you using anything other than official baseline firmware on the device. It's not your phone even though you paid good money for it and they described it as a sale.
Yep. And you can rest assured, since it's a smartphone, someone, somewhere will find a social engineering exploit to trick people into zapping their phones this way.
Unlikely...
If they've put eFuse stuff on the phone, you might be able tapdance around the issue a bit- but the odds are good that if you're modding the phone you'll brick it. And it's liable to brick a few un-modded phones as well. There was a reason they quit using it a while back (this stuff is from the early part the last decade...)- and I'm kind of surprised they brought it back on this phone.
Sure they will... But I don't appreciate having them try to transform it more into a rental of the device than a sale- and then framing it in as a sale. I'm sure there's other people that'll view it the same way as I.
Sadly, I'm fairly sure Verizon asked Moto to do this- they always seem to find a way to miss the point and try to assert "control" over everything.
Ah... I guess I won't be buying a DroidX then. Sad, really... I was looking forward to getting one when the contract was up on my Droid.
And I've been very happy with my Droid. Now, one wonders...was this done to suit Verizon or if it was on Moto's own thinking that it was done. I might not have modded my phone when I got it, but doing things like this are a real put-off. I bought the phone, it's mine to do with as I see fit- and putting in things like this take that away from me. It turns it into Motorola's device or Verizon's device and I'm just renting it. Sorry, you SOLD me a phone guys and if you're concerned about "user experience" or "risks to the network" design the damn phone to not need to be concerned about EITHER- and anything else is lying to the customer outright.
Heh... No...it's a bit worse than that. :-D
It's partly that, partly that the "misinformed" aren't just that, there's more going on and, while I won't get into details, telling those classes of people are going to be likely to fight harder to hold on to their beliefs since they're not based upon facts...they're based upon feelings. When facts follow feelings, you will have no end to trouble and there's little convincing those sorts of people of ANYTHING that they don't feel is to be the truth.
Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't buy their line directly like you're doing.
It's entirely too convenient and took them too long to come up with this as an answer for me to wholly accept it as the cause. But then it's in vogue to bash the US, even in the US, these days.
Yep, that it does. It also presumes the sensors collected the data correctly.
NEITHER can be presumed. Toyota, you don't get out of this THAT easily.
Considering that it's not too much more difficult to slap the SDTV interfaces onto a current era video card (C'mon- ATI and NVidia did it for YEARS as it was...) in addition to the HDMI/DisplayPort/DVI/VGA interface stuff we're currently using, that's bunk. The middle-to-high end cards right at the moment are much more muscular than the current crop of console's GPU hardware and run $100-150 without the extra hardware and would only add about $20-30 on to that to add the other interfaces.
Check the price there. Cheaper than even a Wii. Sure, you'll need to factor in the costs of the "crap" PC, but the thing is that you can end up with a x86 gaming rig with this config for about what you'd pay for a PS3- with a similar result. If you have an ARM Cortex-A9 CPU based design (not an SoC like they're currently doing, but a real motherboard based machine...) you could end up spending slightly less for roughly the same with only the GPU burning up most of the juice in the machine. Once you've done that, the costs of the base stay the same for quite a while and the GPU card gets periodic upgrades. Done right, you can have a "consistent" environment for the game studios and publishers to produce for, but none of the royalties owed to the console maker. Unfortunately, for pretty much everyone except the console makers, the publishers are enamored with DRM and with this platform the DRM would be less "solid" or nonexistent and, well, "we can't have that now".
It's not what you think that scotches the idea in the short-term.