Is the BYOD price on any carrier low enough for that to be true? Around here you only come out ahead if you can find a new non-carrier phone for less than $240 which seems highly unlikley.
I think you're wrong about why it fails, it's not because the customers are uneducated, it's because the cellular marketplace isn't really a "competitive market".
Now there's a good argument to be made that it can't be a truly competitive market as there are limited numbers of frequencies available, and it's therefore more of a natural monopoly, but the point still stands. If the market isn't free, than the free market can't solve any problems.
In the USA Cable outsells DSL, so in the USA it appears that the cable companies are doing a better job delivering on their promises. However in the rest of the OECD countries DSL outsells cable by a large margin with very few exceptions.
American Telcos have screwed up, that's not the technology's fault, it's the companies' fault for how they implemented it.
People don't flock to DSL because it's slower, they flock to it because it's faster. But as I said before, it's all business decisions, any company can chose to do things right or wrong regardless of which technology they use.
And AGAIN you're completely ignoring the central point of the argument.
You're extrapolating your one small corner of the planet and trying to say that the rest of the world is the same, it's not.
Yes there ARE situations where DSL is done wrong, but that isn't the general use case where I am. I'm even willing to grant you the concept that there may be a cable company somewhere that's implemented their system right, though I've never seen it.
But your claim that it's inherent to the technology and that Cable has any form of technical superiority is where you go way off the rails in to speculation at best, and bald faced lies at worst.
What I'm pointing out is that the end user in many places in the world has to make exactly the choice you're talking about, only the situation is completely reversed, so REALISTICALLY they chose DSL every time. It's faster, it's more stable, and superior in EVERY SINGLE WAY. Why would they pay the same amount for half the speed by going to cable? That's why the telephone company where I live is stealing customers from the cable company hand over fist. I've seen the numbers, and they're NOT good for the cable company! Why on earth would people be flocking to the telco from the cable co if DSL was really an inferior product?
I'm trying not to argue which technology is technically superior (though it's an easy one for me to go down) because it's 100% irrelevant in the real world as to which one is technically superior when the real reason either one is better in any one location is completely down to business decisions.
You need to stop extrapolating your limited experience with one or two companies in one country to proclaim that Cable is superior to DSL worldwide when it is very much not the case.
Who cares how far from the CO you are if you get 100/25 on DSL and 10/2 on coax?
Cable! Oh! DSL is so distance limited! Boo hoo! It'll only take me a day and a half to download this! DSL: Oh crap! I'm so distance limited! It's going to take me 20 minutes to download this!
You continue to completely ignore implementation. Your complaints have zero to do with the underlying technology, and everything to do with how it's implemented. Just because the cable company got it right in your location while the telco screwed it up doesn't mean it isn't the reverse in other places. There is nothing inherent in either technology that protects it from poor implementation, and nothing in either technology that ensures it either. Both are capable of good speeds, and both have companies capable of screwing it up.
Your blind defence of cable over DSL while ignoring implementation makes me wonder if you work for a cable company?
I could just as easily say there's an inherent problem with coax that if you have too many subscribers on a node you'll never get full speeds. The issue is that twisted pair has less congestion as it's not a shared medium and unlike DSL with DSLAMs out in the community, coax only has a few nodes in central locations.
I think you completely ignored my sentence about implementation. If implemented correctly DSL can do great speeds. The telco here has spent the last decade moving DSLAMs out in to the field closer to the customers (average loop lengths of 700 metres or less) Meanwhile the cable company has spent the last decade sitting on their hands as customer demands for bandwidth have skyrocketed. The result is super fast and reliable DSL, and slow unreliable cable.
As I said earlier, both technologies can be implemented right, or wrong. Where I am the telco chose right, and there cable company chose wrong. Maybe in your location it's backwards, but neither technology is inherently better than the other. (Actually there's a strong argument that DSL is better unless you have an obscene number of coax nodes, which would be uneconomical to maintain. You just can't beat having a dedicated pipe for that last mile where the bandwidth is most limited, but that implies both technologies being implemented well, and as long as either company cuts corners, the corners they cut will dictate which is better far more than the underlying technology)
Around here the cable company is losing customers hand over fist to the telco.
Those talking about how cable is a superior technology to DSL don't know what they're talking about. What makes either technology superior or inferior is the implementation, both technologies are capable of good solid high speeds if implemented right. Around here that means DSL is the way to go, the cable company advertises speeds they can't possibly provide due to oversubscribed nodes and lack of infrastructure upgrades, while the telco advertises the exact speeds that the customers actually get at their house as they've spent the past decade pouring tons of money in to infrastructure upgrades. Pricing is the same between the two companies, so why would you go for the one advertising more than they can provide when you could get what you paid for with the other? I've always found that to get the same speeds you need to purchase almost twice the package from the cable company that you need from the telco.
Add to that the fact that the telco is way ahead of the cable company in relation to rolling out fibre to the home/business and the cable company is really starting to be in a bit of a tough spot.
They could release an updated model every day for all I care, I'll replace my phone when I need a new phone, not because they released something new.
Where I think the real problem comes in is that many manufacturers have a dozen different models of phone, all of which are almost the same thing with little to differentiate them, and names and descriptions that make it hard to tell which one is supposed to be better than which.
When it does come time for a new phone it's very difficult to figure out which of a couple dozen phones from a dozen manufacturers is supposed to be better than which other one.
Sure I know that a Galaxy S7 is supposed to be better than the S6 which is better than the S5, but where does the S5 neo fit in? it's newer than the S5 so it should be between the S5 and the S6 right? except it turns out they used a cheaper processor than the S5 so it's actually bellow the S5. And where do the J1 and J3 fit in? and how about the A5? and what about the "grand prime"? These are all listed by Samsung as current devices, about the only ones that are easy to understand are the Note and Edge devices because they're relatively clear about what they have that differentiate them from the others.
Their website gives all sorts of superlatives for each device, but you have to dig to find specs, and then trying to compare the specs is often difficult as they use different terminology or focus on different aspects.
Manufacturers need to do a better job of communicating what makes their phone different from the dozens of others, and they should probably stick to a much smaller lineup unless they can find some real differentiators to separate their offerings.
email is perfectly capable of telling dozens or hundreds of people the same thing at the same time. There really is nothing added there. As for maintaining a distribution list, what exactly do you think you're doing when you select who your "friends" are, and decide how to group them, and what group sees certain communications from you? That's the very definition of a "distribution list"
As for your very eloquently put second paragraph, that's one of the reasons I see no value in Facebook.
If I'm in town, a simple SMS or email "I'm in town; drinks?" is enough to reunite perhaps a dozen friends for a nice evening. If I don't have their email addresses or cell phone numbers they aren't really friends.
I don't see any value added by facebook here, they add ads, and they add tracking and monetization, but they don't add any communication value.
It was only "the brits" because the nation of Canada didn't exist yet. As it was though, the British who were actually from Britain were pretty busy fighting in other parts of the world at the time (hence why the US thought it would be easy to invade Canada) so it fell to the British who lived in the area now known as Canada to go to war to defend that area. It was those local "British" who burnt portions of DC. So saying "it wasn't the Canadians, it was the British!" is pretty pedantic really considering that it really was the people living in what's now known as Canada, and who by any reasonable definition were more "Canadian" than "British"
As for "the damn frogs", you do realize that the US allied themselves with France during that time period right?
There's no "massive conspiracy" there's YOU. One person. Who thinks the term "autopilot" is confusing, only because YOU personally don't understand it, and refuse to see that nobody else has the same problem you do.
If it was truly causing problems, we would have seen lots of collisions now, but we don't. We see fewer. The ONLY fatal collision was by someone who has explicitly stated that he DID understand the system. You're grasping at straws to try to justify your own ignorance of a term that the population in general understands very well.
The comparison is because there will always be someone out there who can't even figure out the steering wheel, we can't ban all progress because of that one person.
There's ZERO evidence that drivers of Tesla cars equipped with autopilot don't know what it does. That's the point. Show me proof that people who drive cars equipped with autopilot think the car is self driving. You can't do that because it isn't true.
people will think that they are getting something more than they are.
The only thing I can say is [citation needed] So far there is ZERO evidence to back up that assertion, and that baseless assertion has been the whole argument you've made since your first post. So far there's no indication that any more Tesla Autopilot drivers think their car can do more than it can than drivers of any other car on the road.
Calling it autopilot wasn't creative, it was taking an existing name for a well known product and applying it to something that is so similar as to be indistinguishable. That's smart, it's prudent, and it's safe.
As for "widely misunderstood", Here's where we disagree. You, and you alone, have misunderstood a term that is well known by the vast majority of the population. The term describes the system far better than any other term anyone has ever suggested. Every one of your suggestions so far in this thread would be at best less descriptive, and at worst dangerous and deceptive.
"Autopilot" is the ONLY name so far suggested with ZERO confusion attached.
As for "Tesla fan", actually, Tesla has done many things wrong, and I'm quick to point them out, I could put together a rather long list in fact. This just happens to be one thing that they've done PERFECTLY so far, and I won't criticize a company for something they did right.
You on the other hand appear to have an irrational hatred of everything Tesla, so much so that it has blinded you to all facts and reason, and caused you to criticize Tesla, and Tesla alone, for things they have done far better than their competition to whom you give a complete pass.
I don't know what makes you so rabidly anti-Tesla, but you really should try to look at things with less bias.
Funny, for the people I know the reverse is true. The women would simply switch off and socialize, but the men think they're too important and don't want to risk being unavailable for an "important" message that could come at any second (they're kidding themselves, they aren't that important, and any message they get can wait an hour or two) Only exception I know is new mothers, sure the kid is just fine with grandma, but they're glued to the phone "just in case", usually so much so that they're more stressed than had they just stayed home!
The difference is, he doesn't have to be 100% effective, he just has to make it irritating enough to try to keep a signal that people don't bother to try. Most other applications need much higher success rates as they're trying to guard against malicious actors, not people who are looking for any excuse not to use their phones (if they weren't looking for said excuse, they wouldn't go to that bar in the first place)
The level he needs is easily achievable by accident in many buildings, so I'm sure he'll manage it.
So lets call completely new features the same as old features that do different things?
You've gone from apologizing for the dangerous naming conventions of other manufacturers, to actively advocating something that could cost lives.
The only way people will use the feature safely is if they understand it. The only way to understand it is to combine a feature name that differentiates it from products with different features, while accurately communicating what it does (like say, "Autopilot") combined with training and documentation. Tesla is the ONLY manufacturer to do this right.
Cruise control does not have any affect on the steering wheel, calling it the same thing, while behaving differently would be extremely dangerous.
As for including cruise control on the test, not in all jurisdictions, I can tell you that much, and I bet it's not on tests in MOST jurisdictions.
You SHOULD be telling all the other manufacturers to up their safety game and call it autopilot, instead you're defending, and advocating, for dangerous and confusing naming while chastising the only company doing it right.
It's people like YOU who are the problem. Luckily the cast majority of people understand the autopilot suite of features, and use them appropriately. And so far, the only person do die while using it has also stated publicly (before his death) that he understood them correctly as well. It's crystal clear that the name could not have had any causal effect on this one and only fatality,
Most people replace their phones every 2-3 years, most phones have yearly model releases. As such I'll skip one lackluster release, MAYBE 2, but 3? I'll start looking for another phone.
Thing is, for some strange reason, nobody else has copied the stylus, the Note is still the only phone on the market with one. That said, as much as I love the stylus, it's not enough to keep me in an otherwise inferior phone.
Ok, please explain the benefit to a curved screen as implemented in the Samsung phones.
So far we have: - Can't hold the phone without touching part of the touch screen - videos look weird either curved over the edge, or arbitrarily ending before it - parts of everything that appear on the screen are distorted as they go over the edge, or you don't use the whole screen.
I'm open to some form of game changing use for the "edge" of the screen, but I've never heard of one.
Also please explain the benefit of the battery not being removeable. So far we have: - Decreased life span of the phone as you have to replace the whole phone if the battery lifespan gets too short
Note that you specifically stated that these features were a BENEFIT, not simply neutral, please explain why these 2 features are an IMPROVEMENT over the readily available alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the BYOD price on any carrier low enough for that to be true?
Around here you only come out ahead if you can find a new non-carrier phone for less than $240 which seems highly unlikley.
I think you're wrong about why it fails, it's not because the customers are uneducated, it's because the cellular marketplace isn't really a "competitive market".
Now there's a good argument to be made that it can't be a truly competitive market as there are limited numbers of frequencies available, and it's therefore more of a natural monopoly, but the point still stands. If the market isn't free, than the free market can't solve any problems.
In the USA Cable outsells DSL, so in the USA it appears that the cable companies are doing a better job delivering on their promises. However in the rest of the OECD countries DSL outsells cable by a large margin with very few exceptions.
American Telcos have screwed up, that's not the technology's fault, it's the companies' fault for how they implemented it.
People don't flock to DSL because it's slower, they flock to it because it's faster. But as I said before, it's all business decisions, any company can chose to do things right or wrong regardless of which technology they use.
And AGAIN you're completely ignoring the central point of the argument.
You're extrapolating your one small corner of the planet and trying to say that the rest of the world is the same, it's not.
Yes there ARE situations where DSL is done wrong, but that isn't the general use case where I am. I'm even willing to grant you the concept that there may be a cable company somewhere that's implemented their system right, though I've never seen it.
But your claim that it's inherent to the technology and that Cable has any form of technical superiority is where you go way off the rails in to speculation at best, and bald faced lies at worst.
What I'm pointing out is that the end user in many places in the world has to make exactly the choice you're talking about, only the situation is completely reversed, so REALISTICALLY they chose DSL every time. It's faster, it's more stable, and superior in EVERY SINGLE WAY. Why would they pay the same amount for half the speed by going to cable? That's why the telephone company where I live is stealing customers from the cable company hand over fist. I've seen the numbers, and they're NOT good for the cable company! Why on earth would people be flocking to the telco from the cable co if DSL was really an inferior product?
I'm trying not to argue which technology is technically superior (though it's an easy one for me to go down) because it's 100% irrelevant in the real world as to which one is technically superior when the real reason either one is better in any one location is completely down to business decisions.
You need to stop extrapolating your limited experience with one or two companies in one country to proclaim that Cable is superior to DSL worldwide when it is very much not the case.
Who cares how far from the CO you are if you get 100/25 on DSL and 10/2 on coax?
Cable! Oh! DSL is so distance limited! Boo hoo! It'll only take me a day and a half to download this!
DSL: Oh crap! I'm so distance limited! It's going to take me 20 minutes to download this!
You continue to completely ignore implementation. Your complaints have zero to do with the underlying technology, and everything to do with how it's implemented. Just because the cable company got it right in your location while the telco screwed it up doesn't mean it isn't the reverse in other places.
There is nothing inherent in either technology that protects it from poor implementation, and nothing in either technology that ensures it either. Both are capable of good speeds, and both have companies capable of screwing it up.
Your blind defence of cable over DSL while ignoring implementation makes me wonder if you work for a cable company?
I could just as easily say there's an inherent problem with coax that if you have too many subscribers on a node you'll never get full speeds.
The issue is that twisted pair has less congestion as it's not a shared medium and unlike DSL with DSLAMs out in the community, coax only has a few nodes in central locations.
I think you completely ignored my sentence about implementation. If implemented correctly DSL can do great speeds. The telco here has spent the last decade moving DSLAMs out in to the field closer to the customers (average loop lengths of 700 metres or less) Meanwhile the cable company has spent the last decade sitting on their hands as customer demands for bandwidth have skyrocketed. The result is super fast and reliable DSL, and slow unreliable cable.
As I said earlier, both technologies can be implemented right, or wrong. Where I am the telco chose right, and there cable company chose wrong. Maybe in your location it's backwards, but neither technology is inherently better than the other. (Actually there's a strong argument that DSL is better unless you have an obscene number of coax nodes, which would be uneconomical to maintain. You just can't beat having a dedicated pipe for that last mile where the bandwidth is most limited, but that implies both technologies being implemented well, and as long as either company cuts corners, the corners they cut will dictate which is better far more than the underlying technology)
Around here the cable company is losing customers hand over fist to the telco.
Those talking about how cable is a superior technology to DSL don't know what they're talking about. What makes either technology superior or inferior is the implementation, both technologies are capable of good solid high speeds if implemented right. Around here that means DSL is the way to go, the cable company advertises speeds they can't possibly provide due to oversubscribed nodes and lack of infrastructure upgrades, while the telco advertises the exact speeds that the customers actually get at their house as they've spent the past decade pouring tons of money in to infrastructure upgrades. Pricing is the same between the two companies, so why would you go for the one advertising more than they can provide when you could get what you paid for with the other? I've always found that to get the same speeds you need to purchase almost twice the package from the cable company that you need from the telco.
Add to that the fact that the telco is way ahead of the cable company in relation to rolling out fibre to the home/business and the cable company is really starting to be in a bit of a tough spot.
They could release an updated model every day for all I care, I'll replace my phone when I need a new phone, not because they released something new.
Where I think the real problem comes in is that many manufacturers have a dozen different models of phone, all of which are almost the same thing with little to differentiate them, and names and descriptions that make it hard to tell which one is supposed to be better than which.
When it does come time for a new phone it's very difficult to figure out which of a couple dozen phones from a dozen manufacturers is supposed to be better than which other one.
Sure I know that a Galaxy S7 is supposed to be better than the S6 which is better than the S5, but where does the S5 neo fit in? it's newer than the S5 so it should be between the S5 and the S6 right? except it turns out they used a cheaper processor than the S5 so it's actually bellow the S5. And where do the J1 and J3 fit in? and how about the A5? and what about the "grand prime"? These are all listed by Samsung as current devices, about the only ones that are easy to understand are the Note and Edge devices because they're relatively clear about what they have that differentiate them from the others.
Their website gives all sorts of superlatives for each device, but you have to dig to find specs, and then trying to compare the specs is often difficult as they use different terminology or focus on different aspects.
Manufacturers need to do a better job of communicating what makes their phone different from the dozens of others, and they should probably stick to a much smaller lineup unless they can find some real differentiators to separate their offerings.
email is perfectly capable of telling dozens or hundreds of people the same thing at the same time. There really is nothing added there. As for maintaining a distribution list, what exactly do you think you're doing when you select who your "friends" are, and decide how to group them, and what group sees certain communications from you? That's the very definition of a "distribution list"
As for your very eloquently put second paragraph, that's one of the reasons I see no value in Facebook.
If I'm in town, a simple SMS or email "I'm in town; drinks?" is enough to reunite perhaps a dozen friends for a nice evening. If I don't have their email addresses or cell phone numbers they aren't really friends.
I don't see any value added by facebook here, they add ads, and they add tracking and monetization, but they don't add any communication value.
It was only "the brits" because the nation of Canada didn't exist yet. As it was though, the British who were actually from Britain were pretty busy fighting in other parts of the world at the time (hence why the US thought it would be easy to invade Canada) so it fell to the British who lived in the area now known as Canada to go to war to defend that area. It was those local "British" who burnt portions of DC. So saying "it wasn't the Canadians, it was the British!" is pretty pedantic really considering that it really was the people living in what's now known as Canada, and who by any reasonable definition were more "Canadian" than "British"
As for "the damn frogs", you do realize that the US allied themselves with France during that time period right?
Which has so far proved 100% successful at preventing any high def content from being pirated... oh wait...
There's no "massive conspiracy" there's YOU. One person. Who thinks the term "autopilot" is confusing, only because YOU personally don't understand it, and refuse to see that nobody else has the same problem you do.
If it was truly causing problems, we would have seen lots of collisions now, but we don't. We see fewer. The ONLY fatal collision was by someone who has explicitly stated that he DID understand the system. You're grasping at straws to try to justify your own ignorance of a term that the population in general understands very well.
The comparison is because there will always be someone out there who can't even figure out the steering wheel, we can't ban all progress because of that one person.
There's ZERO evidence that drivers of Tesla cars equipped with autopilot don't know what it does. That's the point. Show me proof that people who drive cars equipped with autopilot think the car is self driving. You can't do that because it isn't true.
people will think that they are getting something more than they are.
The only thing I can say is [citation needed]
So far there is ZERO evidence to back up that assertion, and that baseless assertion has been the whole argument you've made since your first post. So far there's no indication that any more Tesla Autopilot drivers think their car can do more than it can than drivers of any other car on the road.
Calling it autopilot wasn't creative, it was taking an existing name for a well known product and applying it to something that is so similar as to be indistinguishable. That's smart, it's prudent, and it's safe.
As for "widely misunderstood", Here's where we disagree. You, and you alone, have misunderstood a term that is well known by the vast majority of the population. The term describes the system far better than any other term anyone has ever suggested. Every one of your suggestions so far in this thread would be at best less descriptive, and at worst dangerous and deceptive.
"Autopilot" is the ONLY name so far suggested with ZERO confusion attached.
As for "Tesla fan", actually, Tesla has done many things wrong, and I'm quick to point them out, I could put together a rather long list in fact. This just happens to be one thing that they've done PERFECTLY so far, and I won't criticize a company for something they did right.
You on the other hand appear to have an irrational hatred of everything Tesla, so much so that it has blinded you to all facts and reason, and caused you to criticize Tesla, and Tesla alone, for things they have done far better than their competition to whom you give a complete pass.
I don't know what makes you so rabidly anti-Tesla, but you really should try to look at things with less bias.
I did say they were kidding themselves...
Funny, for the people I know the reverse is true. The women would simply switch off and socialize, but the men think they're too important and don't want to risk being unavailable for an "important" message that could come at any second (they're kidding themselves, they aren't that important, and any message they get can wait an hour or two)
Only exception I know is new mothers, sure the kid is just fine with grandma, but they're glued to the phone "just in case", usually so much so that they're more stressed than had they just stayed home!
The difference is, he doesn't have to be 100% effective, he just has to make it irritating enough to try to keep a signal that people don't bother to try. Most other applications need much higher success rates as they're trying to guard against malicious actors, not people who are looking for any excuse not to use their phones (if they weren't looking for said excuse, they wouldn't go to that bar in the first place)
The level he needs is easily achievable by accident in many buildings, so I'm sure he'll manage it.
S5 is water resistant and has a user replaceable battery, so no tradeoff needed there.
I am running a rooted note4 as my daily driver, no locked bootloader here. Do you have some form of a different version?
Glad to be corrected... too bad it's a low end phone instead of a flagship.
So lets call completely new features the same as old features that do different things?
You've gone from apologizing for the dangerous naming conventions of other manufacturers, to actively advocating something that could cost lives.
The only way people will use the feature safely is if they understand it. The only way to understand it is to combine a feature name that differentiates it from products with different features, while accurately communicating what it does (like say, "Autopilot") combined with training and documentation. Tesla is the ONLY manufacturer to do this right.
Cruise control does not have any affect on the steering wheel, calling it the same thing, while behaving differently would be extremely dangerous.
As for including cruise control on the test, not in all jurisdictions, I can tell you that much, and I bet it's not on tests in MOST jurisdictions.
You SHOULD be telling all the other manufacturers to up their safety game and call it autopilot, instead you're defending, and advocating, for dangerous and confusing naming while chastising the only company doing it right.
It's people like YOU who are the problem. Luckily the cast majority of people understand the autopilot suite of features, and use them appropriately. And so far, the only person do die while using it has also stated publicly (before his death) that he understood them correctly as well. It's crystal clear that the name could not have had any causal effect on this one and only fatality,
Most people replace their phones every 2-3 years, most phones have yearly model releases. As such I'll skip one lackluster release, MAYBE 2, but 3? I'll start looking for another phone.
Thing is, for some strange reason, nobody else has copied the stylus, the Note is still the only phone on the market with one. That said, as much as I love the stylus, it's not enough to keep me in an otherwise inferior phone.
Ok, please explain the benefit to a curved screen as implemented in the Samsung phones.
So far we have:
- Can't hold the phone without touching part of the touch screen
- videos look weird either curved over the edge, or arbitrarily ending before it
- parts of everything that appear on the screen are distorted as they go over the edge, or you don't use the whole screen.
I'm open to some form of game changing use for the "edge" of the screen, but I've never heard of one.
Also please explain the benefit of the battery not being removeable.
So far we have:
- Decreased life span of the phone as you have to replace the whole phone if the battery lifespan gets too short
Note that you specifically stated that these features were a BENEFIT, not simply neutral, please explain why these 2 features are an IMPROVEMENT over the readily available alternatives.
I have rooted every Android phone I've ever had, I won't buy one where I can't.