It lets me see my messages on the computer (unlike SMSes).
But it sucks and still rely on your phone to send and receive. Why?
It easily exports the conversations/messages from the app to your computer (unlike Facebook)
On the contrary, Facebook does it right. You can shut down your phone and still continue your conversation on your PC.
And best of all, it is based on phone numbers
This is one of the major reason for NOT using whatsapp. Phone numbers suck as an identifier. They are usually not free, belong to the carrier, and are location-specific. Why should a chat application require a cell phone number is beyond me.
People see this coming, but they don't care. Frankly, they shouldn't yet.
Yes they should. They should be glad when Netflix doesn't get show XYZ instead of ranting. It means someone else can offer it and there can be more competition. One must be a fool to think that Netflix can offer all shows and movies out there for $10-15/month
Start with low prices, kill the competition, and then raise prices higher than the cable/satellite providers once they succeed. Typical drug dealer behavior. The only thing that amazes me is how many people didn't see this coming.
How much of that was caused by the wireless part of the network? Would they have noticed if they used LTE with 20 ms more latency instead? I guess not.
Netflix had low prices in order to buy market share. Their plan since day 1, if they succeed, is to raise prices when their dominant position is strong enough. So yes, prices will raise. Netflix is not a charity.
What I say is in the long run, you will pay more for the same content in a monopolistic market than in a competitive market. Despite the fact that the monopolist can give you a discount for a while in order to build its monopoly status.
Why stop there? Even better. I subscribe only to my very own personal video streaming service (which currently has an empty catalog of course). When all my competitors, including Netflix and Disney, will die because they are not making any money, they'll be forced to offer their content on my own service since it will be the only one left, right?
Fragmentation is good. A Netflix monopoly is bad, period. It always amazes me how many people actually don't understand basic economics and want to be abused by Netflix (or Uber, to give another example).
Also this is the ideal scenario but realistically I don't expect it any time soon. In the mean time, if there are a dozens of serious streaming providers, it's a much better situation then having just Netflix.
I mean open standard. Just like you can chose the web browser of your choice, you should be able to chose the streaming application of your choice to access your content. All applications would be using a common protocol to access content directly from content producers. The content producers could chose to host their content wherever they like.
There will never be too much fragmentation. The best thing would be if content producers could offer their content directly on an open platform compatible application of your choice. We don't need Netflix or any other middle man.
And the worst is a Netflix monopoly. If Netflix gets a monopoly, they'll become just as bad (or maybe worse) than big cable co.
If Netflix gets less content in the future (because, say Disney keeps its content), then it means they'll be able to lower prices, isn't it? At least that's what should happen in a competitive market, and we definitely need/want a competitive market.
I think this year could be the year of the upgrade in the smartphone industry because of 5G. 5G is going to be available this year, and people will come out with 5G phones. And 5G is different from LTE, not only because of bandwidth, but also latency. You may want to have even bigger screens on 5G phones because of the more content you can get. That could trigger different killer applications that you run on phones.
I know this is BS speak (marketing) but still, almost everything is wrong in that statement. First of all, most people won't care about 5G and won't upgrade until forced to (new phones will be 5G, and old phones will break or become too slow at some point). Just like when going from 3G to 4G, except that it is going to be even worse since the added bandwith isn't as useful. 5G definately won't require or even benefit from bigger screens. Altough he's right that phone screens keep getting bigger every year, but this has nothing to do with 5G. And finally, there won't be any killer 5G application, especially not this year. The first 5G phones are probably going to suck (expensive, poor battery life, non-existing networks) anyways.
you'll only get calls from t-mobile customers then.
Also there might be a legitimate use for fake caller ids. Let's say I am using a voip application and want you to call me back on my cell phone, I may spoof myself.
so it will block spammers spoofing T-Mobile's numbers to call other T-Mobile's customers. But won't block all other spoofers. As much as I'd like this to be a good start, I can't see how it can be useful.
Your download speed and the actual capabilities of your modem and tower under ideal conditions are not the same thing.
LTE doesn't meet the original 4G criteria, LTE-A does. LTE is still universally considered 4G. This has nothing to do with less than optimal conditions.
Also isn't 5G effectively IMT-2020 by definition and the whole idea of achieving the same speeds outside of the frequency range defined in IMT-2020 is the reason why 5G-NR has it's own name?
Nope. 5G-NR is the technology/implementation. It's the successor to LTE. There could have been various 5G competing technologies but it turns out only one will succeed. Unlike 4G which had Wimax and LTE and 3G which had CDMA2000 and UMTS. 4G was also vague and in the end even included
5G-NR may not have the same speed but it does share common capabilities with 5G (IMT-2020) as far as I understand it anyway. The same cannot be said for LTE-A Pro
Yes the same can be said for LTE-A. 5G-NR under 6 GHz will have no major benefit over LTE-A. Despite being different technologies, the actual speed will be similar. Therefore, 5G-NR should be classifed as a 4G technology in this case, to be consistent.
Also 5G doesn't have a specification from what I understand. ITU IMT-2020 does. People confuse 5G, 5G NR and IMT-2020. They are three different things, with 5G being vague. My prediction is that any 5G NR network will be called 5G even though it doesn't meet the IMT-2020 20 Gbps minimum speed criteria. More specifically, any sub 6 GHz 5G NR network is going to have speeds very similar to LTE-A and will still be called 5G.
China can (and does) trade with Iran. The problem is corporations/individuals doing so can't also trade with the USA. Huawei did. The other execs shouldn't step a foot in any country with extradition treaty with the USA.
for a gaming laptop 1080p is good enough. Unlike text, resolution doesn't matter that much for games (or movies). Also, laptop video cards are much slower, therefore to get acceptable frame rate, a reduced resolution is a good compromise. Unless you want to buy a new gaming laptop in 6 months of course.
Slashdot Mirror
It lets me see my messages on the computer (unlike SMSes).
But it sucks and still rely on your phone to send and receive. Why?
It easily exports the conversations/messages from the app to your computer (unlike Facebook)
On the contrary, Facebook does it right. You can shut down your phone and still continue your conversation on your PC.
And best of all, it is based on phone numbers
This is one of the major reason for NOT using whatsapp. Phone numbers suck as an identifier. They are usually not free, belong to the carrier, and are location-specific.
Why should a chat application require a cell phone number is beyond me.
from the beginning of their streaming business then
People see this coming, but they don't care. Frankly, they shouldn't yet.
Yes they should. They should be glad when Netflix doesn't get show XYZ instead of ranting. It means someone else can offer it and there can be more competition.
One must be a fool to think that Netflix can offer all shows and movies out there for $10-15/month
my cable bill surely hasn't increased by anywhere close to that amount over the years. It's more like 2-8% (more then inflation, though)
Start with low prices, kill the competition, and then raise prices higher than the cable/satellite providers once they succeed. Typical drug dealer behavior.
The only thing that amazes me is how many people didn't see this coming.
How much of that was caused by the wireless part of the network? Would they have noticed if they used LTE with 20 ms more latency instead? I guess not.
No, it's not. Anyways that doesn't mean much. It all depends on what you get per dollar.
Netflix had low prices in order to buy market share. Their plan since day 1, if they succeed, is to raise prices when their dominant position is strong enough.
So yes, prices will raise. Netflix is not a charity.
What I say is in the long run, you will pay more for the same content in a monopolistic market than in a competitive market. Despite the fact that the monopolist can give you a discount for a while in order to build its monopoly status.
Why stop there? Even better. I subscribe only to my very own personal video streaming service (which currently has an empty catalog of course). When all my competitors, including Netflix and Disney, will die because they are not making any money, they'll be forced to offer their content on my own service since it will be the only one left, right?
Fragmentation is good. A Netflix monopoly is bad, period. It always amazes me how many people actually don't understand basic economics and want to be abused by Netflix (or Uber, to give another example).
Also this is the ideal scenario but realistically I don't expect it any time soon. In the mean time, if there are a dozens of serious streaming providers, it's a much better situation then having just Netflix.
I mean open standard.
Just like you can chose the web browser of your choice, you should be able to chose the streaming application of your choice to access your content. All applications would be using a common protocol to access content directly from content producers. The content producers could chose to host their content wherever they like.
There will never be too much fragmentation. The best thing would be if content producers could offer their content directly on an open platform compatible application of your choice. We don't need Netflix or any other middle man.
And the worst is a Netflix monopoly. If Netflix gets a monopoly, they'll become just as bad (or maybe worse) than big cable co.
If Netflix gets less content in the future (because, say Disney keeps its content), then it means they'll be able to lower prices, isn't it? At least that's what should happen in a competitive market, and we definitely need/want a competitive market.
I think this year could be the year of the upgrade in the smartphone industry because of 5G. 5G is going to be available this year, and people will come out with 5G phones. And 5G is different from LTE, not only because of bandwidth, but also latency. You may want to have even bigger screens on 5G phones because of the more content you can get. That could trigger different killer applications that you run on phones.
I know this is BS speak (marketing) but still, almost everything is wrong in that statement.
First of all, most people won't care about 5G and won't upgrade until forced to (new phones will be 5G, and old phones will break or become too slow at some point). Just like when going from 3G to 4G, except that it is going to be even worse since the added bandwith isn't as useful.
5G definately won't require or even benefit from bigger screens. Altough he's right that phone screens keep getting bigger every year, but this has nothing to do with 5G. And finally, there won't be any killer 5G application, especially not this year.
The first 5G phones are probably going to suck (expensive, poor battery life, non-existing networks) anyways.
How much is comcast and what speed does it gets you? Even if you don't watch TV it might be worth it. 1.5 Mbps sucks in 2019
they won't trust the call. The only thing they can trust is not being spoofed by other T-mobile customers
you'll only get calls from t-mobile customers then.
Also there might be a legitimate use for fake caller ids. Let's say I am using a voip application and want you to call me back on my cell phone, I may spoof myself.
even if AT&T joined, spammers would spoof other numbers, or even better, non-mobile numbers
so it will block spammers spoofing T-Mobile's numbers to call other T-Mobile's customers. But won't block all other spoofers. As much as I'd like this to be a good start, I can't see how it can be useful.
Your download speed and the actual capabilities of your modem and tower under ideal conditions are not the same thing.
LTE doesn't meet the original 4G criteria, LTE-A does. LTE is still universally considered 4G. This has nothing to do with less than optimal conditions.
Also isn't 5G effectively IMT-2020 by definition and the whole idea of achieving the same speeds outside of the frequency range defined in IMT-2020 is the reason why 5G-NR has it's own name?
Nope. 5G-NR is the technology/implementation. It's the successor to LTE.
There could have been various 5G competing technologies but it turns out only one will succeed. Unlike 4G which had Wimax and LTE and 3G which had CDMA2000 and UMTS. 4G was also vague and in the end even included
5G-NR may not have the same speed but it does share common capabilities with 5G (IMT-2020) as far as I understand it anyway. The same cannot be said for LTE-A Pro
Yes the same can be said for LTE-A. 5G-NR under 6 GHz will have no major benefit over LTE-A. Despite being different technologies, the actual speed will be similar. Therefore, 5G-NR should be classifed as a 4G technology in this case, to be consistent.
Also 5G doesn't have a specification from what I understand. ITU IMT-2020 does. People confuse 5G, 5G NR and IMT-2020. They are three different things, with 5G being vague.
My prediction is that any 5G NR network will be called 5G even though it doesn't meet the IMT-2020 20 Gbps minimum speed criteria.
More specifically, any sub 6 GHz 5G NR network is going to have speeds very similar to LTE-A and will still be called 5G.
4G also had a minimum speed and even when I am stuck downloading at 10 Mbps they still call that network 4G
the problem would be solved if we switched to a more meaningful terminology such as:
-LTE network
-2 Gbps cellular network
China can (and does) trade with Iran. The problem is corporations/individuals doing so can't also trade with the USA. Huawei did. The other execs shouldn't step a foot in any country with extradition treaty with the USA.
for a gaming laptop 1080p is good enough. Unlike text, resolution doesn't matter that much for games (or movies).
Also, laptop video cards are much slower, therefore to get acceptable frame rate, a reduced resolution is a good compromise. Unless you want to buy a new gaming laptop in 6 months of course.