according to the nexus one specs, the UMTS Band (2100/AWS/900) will not support ATT network 3G but does work on T-Mobiles 3G network. T-Mobile 3G and voice coverage is one of worst in US.
as far as i know, no smartphone covers both AT&T and T-Mo's 3g network. no existing android phone does, and the iphone doesn't. blackberry sells two different hardware versions of it's phone models, one to cover each band.
it's not some insidious plan, it's the economics of supporting two different 3g networks.
This Google phone will have essentially the same deal. You'll still be tied to a carrier, and it will be expensive to walk away.
an important part of the announcement is that they are selling an unlocked, GSM phone for $530. sounds like a lot, but depending on the plan you chose you can end up saving money over the course of what would be a 2-year contract. if you are complaining about being tied to GSM networks, you can hardly blame google for that.
I know that Verizon and T-Mobile phones use SIM cards, so theoretically you could unlock those phones and switch networks, but why won't there be a Sprint version?
verizon does not use SIM cards. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only US carriers to use GSM / SIM.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but it seems either A) shortsighted of Google to ignore the largest cellular network, or B) stupid of Sprint to pass up such a kickass phone...
the phone is available on AT&T, T-mobile, and is coming to verizon soon. it's available on 3 of the 4 major carriers. i wouldn't call that short sighted.
the "not really" comment in the article is comparing it to the iphone. i wish people would realize that there will never be an
"iphone killer". android is a calculated chipping-away at the iphone. from TFA, the nexus one sounds like a big chip.
It's also one more reason why I won't use Android, despite how good it is. I already use too many Google services. I don't need them to know even more about me than they already do.
no. by using an android phone they aren't going to know any more about you than if you just used their other services over the web. the thinking from google is that the phone is just a hook. if they can get me using it on my phone, then i'll use the web interface at some point and contribute to their ad-based revenue. in fact, the android google apps are ad-free.
when most carriers do not even offer a no contract option, it has nothing to do with being bad at math.
the current model has carriers competing only on what cool new phones they offer. that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than competing on their service / customer service / features / restrictions.
t-mobile is the only US carrier i know of that offers new customers a no-contract option for smart phones. i'll be getting an unlocked phone and jumping over to them as soon as possible.
well. i actually like the story. i thought the implementation of the story was not as good. i tend to give sci-fi a little more slack than other genres. i think doing an excellent job of telling a sci-fi story is very, very hard to do in a movie because of the special effects in requires and the sheer amount of time to build up the future / alternate universe where it takes place. star wars is in a special class because the universe is *vastly* different than anything we know.
i compare it to my all-time favorite sci-fi, bladerunner. an excellent movie by all accounts, but the story still happens on an earth that is not so far off from what we have today, with no aliens, without space travel, with androids that conveniently look just like humans. it's much easier to write a consistent compelling story if you intertwine it with real life facts that people already understand and have some familiarity with.
do you remember luke whining like a 5-year old baby when he couldn't make stuff float around the first time he tried it when yoda was training him? do you think walking talking teddy bears are any less child like than cheesy two-headed pod racer announcer? how about the silly teenager-ish sexual tension between han and laia? i can go on and on if you like.
in all forms of storytelling, be it movies, books or verbal, you have to put some effort into it. there are always some thing that don't seem right and places where you need to let your imagination fill in the blanks. you are just lazy and impossible to satisfy anyway if you can't do that.
he became evil because he was seeing visions of the eventual death of his wife, and was told by sidius that only the dark side can change her fate... as opposed to the jedi, who would forbid such a connection in the first place. there was also the part where palpatine was playing to anakin's ego to turn him against the jedi.
that part of the plot was progressing throughout the whole movie from the first we saw anakin speaking to palpatine.
the original star wars movies are pretty equivalent taking into account the time difference. painful acting, nice special effects. they both have the same story line, so i don't see how anyone can complain there. if anything, episodes 1,2,3 gave me more details, enough for me to really get into the star wars universe.
i think the real problem is that so today's critics are the ones that says episodes 4, 5, 6 when they were kids, and when they had a less critical mind to all of the same problems that exist in 1, 2, 3.
additionally, the idea that they pay $600 for a droid phone is BS. they are the single distribution channel for the droid in the US. that means that motorola is bending over to have them push their phone. they are getting droids at a massive discount over what a normal consumer would pay for the unlocked phone.
the problem in the US market anyway is that *all* of the providers are pirates. you can go to a competitor, but you get screwed there as well, albeit in a different manner probably. i guarantee that at&t is just waiting to see what the FTC does with verizon's ETF. if it stands, they'll bump their own shortly.
the fact of the matter is that lower ETF's aren't something that providers can effectively use for marketing against their competitor. consequently all the providers will have similar ETFs in the long run. you can't sell someone a phone / plan by talking about how easy it is to *leave* the plan early. it's a confusing message. why would the user want to leave? because the service is poor? it implies there is a reason the user would want to leave in the first place. not a good message.
first, java never held a high percent of development positions. the only thing the article shows is that MSFT successfully converted their existing developers to C#.
second, a WORA language / SDK will never beat one that is written to run on a single platform..NET is WORA in theory, Java is WORA in practice. there are necessarily some trade offs to be made if you are going to try to be WORA.
third, i agree with other people that Java really slacked in past in terms of providing a polished look and feel, but that has changed. take a look at the new releases of the netbeans IDE for an example.
and, for those that say it's not truly WORA, please point to an alternative that even comes close. yes there are sometimes differences to be worked out, but it's light years ahead of doing a traditional port.
The BBC claims 'We did extensive testing on the new encoders which showed that they could produce pictures at the same or even better quality than the old encoders...' I got a good laugh off of this, but is it really possible to get better quality from a lower bitrate?"
i think they are referring to the combo of better encoders + the different bit rate. sure it's possible, if the older encoders were poor quality.
you do understand that most every aspect of/. is people drawing conclusions and stating opinions based on a limited, incomplete set of facts right? heck, why did you even bother reading the TFA if all you could possibly do is to make prejudiced opinions?
and your post is an opinion too, i'm curious what makes it more worthwhile than the others? or maybe you agree it isn't. then i'd ask why you bother posting. after all, it doesn't matter.
people are reading HER blog entry. how is that a hunch or a personal prejudice? it's a first hand account of the event. it doesn't get much better than that, unless you are there... and i don't know about you but my ability to travel back in time and travel the world to validate every story i read is quite limited. anything you read will be someone's (other than you) interpretation of an event.
i'll be monitoring your posts closely. i expect all of them to read "i wasn't there / this didn't happen to me directly, no comment."
Slashdot Mirror
according to the nexus one specs, the UMTS Band (2100/AWS/900) will not support ATT network 3G but does work on T-Mobiles 3G network. T-Mobile 3G and voice coverage is one of worst in US.
as far as i know, no smartphone covers both AT&T and T-Mo's 3g network. no existing android phone does, and the iphone doesn't. blackberry sells two different hardware versions of it's phone models, one to cover each band.
it's not some insidious plan, it's the economics of supporting two different 3g networks.
This Google phone will have essentially the same deal. You'll still be tied to a carrier, and it will be expensive to walk away.
an important part of the announcement is that they are selling an unlocked, GSM phone for $530. sounds like a lot, but depending on the plan you chose you can end up saving money over the course of what would be a 2-year contract. if you are complaining about being tied to GSM networks, you can hardly blame google for that.
i'd be interested to know if the blackberry is dual-mode, or if there are different hardware versions of the phone for each network.
I know that Verizon and T-Mobile phones use SIM cards, so theoretically you could unlock those phones and switch networks, but why won't there be a Sprint version?
verizon does not use SIM cards. AT&T and T-Mobile are the only US carriers to use GSM / SIM.
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but it seems either A) shortsighted of Google to ignore the largest cellular network, or B) stupid of Sprint to pass up such a kickass phone...
the phone is available on AT&T, T-mobile, and is coming to verizon soon. it's available on 3 of the 4 major carriers. i wouldn't call that short sighted.
motorola cliq. motorola droid. htc g1. yes, they can do that.
where do you get a data sim for $29 / month?
the "not really" comment in the article is comparing it to the iphone. i wish people would realize that there will never be an
"iphone killer". android is a calculated chipping-away at the iphone. from TFA, the nexus one sounds like a big chip.
It's also one more reason why I won't use Android, despite how good it is. I already use too many Google services. I don't need them to know even more about me than they already do.
no. by using an android phone they aren't going to know any more about you than if you just used their other services over the web. the thinking from google is that the phone is just a hook. if they can get me using it on my phone, then i'll use the web interface at some point and contribute to their ad-based revenue. in fact, the android google apps are ad-free.
when most carriers do not even offer a no contract option, it has nothing to do with being bad at math.
the current model has carriers competing only on what cool new phones they offer. that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than competing on their service / customer service / features / restrictions.
t-mobile is the only US carrier i know of that offers new customers a no-contract option for smart phones. i'll be getting an unlocked phone and jumping over to them as soon as possible.
compared to where nokia was 4 years ago, that's a large decline. if you are a nokia shareholder, that's a terrifying decline.
well. i actually like the story. i thought the implementation of the story was not as good. i tend to give sci-fi a little more slack than other genres. i think doing an excellent job of telling a sci-fi story is very, very hard to do in a movie because of the special effects in requires and the sheer amount of time to build up the future / alternate universe where it takes place. star wars is in a special class because the universe is *vastly* different than anything we know.
i compare it to my all-time favorite sci-fi, bladerunner. an excellent movie by all accounts, but the story still happens on an earth that is not so far off from what we have today, with no aliens, without space travel, with androids that conveniently look just like humans. it's much easier to write a consistent compelling story if you intertwine it with real life facts that people already understand and have some familiarity with.
do you remember luke whining like a 5-year old baby when he couldn't make stuff float around the first time he tried it when yoda was training him? do you think walking talking teddy bears are any less child like than cheesy two-headed pod racer announcer? how about the silly teenager-ish sexual tension between han and laia? i can go on and on if you like.
in all forms of storytelling, be it movies, books or verbal, you have to put some effort into it. there are always some thing that don't seem right and places where you need to let your imagination fill in the blanks. you are just lazy and impossible to satisfy anyway if you can't do that.
he became evil because he was seeing visions of the eventual death of his wife, and was told by sidius that only the dark side can change her fate ... as opposed to the jedi, who would forbid such a connection in the first place. there was also the part where palpatine was playing to anakin's ego to turn him against the jedi.
that part of the plot was progressing throughout the whole movie from the first we saw anakin speaking to palpatine.
yes, it is always troubling when something is explained with science. you wouldn't be religious would you?
the original star wars movies are pretty equivalent taking into account the time difference. painful acting, nice special effects. they both have the same story line, so i don't see how anyone can complain there. if anything, episodes 1,2,3 gave me more details, enough for me to really get into the star wars universe.
i think the real problem is that so today's critics are the ones that says episodes 4, 5, 6 when they were kids, and when they had a less critical mind to all of the same problems that exist in 1, 2, 3.
additionally, the idea that they pay $600 for a droid phone is BS. they are the single distribution channel for the droid in the US. that means that motorola is bending over to have them push their phone. they are getting droids at a massive discount over what a normal consumer would pay for the unlocked phone.
the problem in the US market anyway is that *all* of the providers are pirates. you can go to a competitor, but you get screwed there as well, albeit in a different manner probably. i guarantee that at&t is just waiting to see what the FTC does with verizon's ETF. if it stands, they'll bump their own shortly.
the fact of the matter is that lower ETF's aren't something that providers can effectively use for marketing against their competitor. consequently all the providers will have similar ETFs in the long run. you can't sell someone a phone / plan by talking about how easy it is to *leave* the plan early. it's a confusing message. why would the user want to leave? because the service is poor? it implies there is a reason the user would want to leave in the first place. not a good message.
first, java never held a high percent of development positions. the only thing the article shows is that MSFT successfully converted their existing developers to C#.
second, a WORA language / SDK will never beat one that is written to run on a single platform. .NET is WORA in theory, Java is WORA in practice. there are necessarily some trade offs to be made if you are going to try to be WORA.
third, i agree with other people that Java really slacked in past in terms of providing a polished look and feel, but that has changed. take a look at the new releases of the netbeans IDE for an example.
and, for those that say it's not truly WORA, please point to an alternative that even comes close. yes there are sometimes differences to be worked out, but it's light years ahead of doing a traditional port.
The BBC claims 'We did extensive testing on the new encoders which showed that they could produce pictures at the same or even better quality than the old encoders ...' I got a good laugh off of this, but is it really possible to get better quality from a lower bitrate?"
i think they are referring to the combo of better encoders + the different bit rate. sure it's possible, if the older encoders were poor quality.
you do understand that most every aspect of /. is people drawing conclusions and stating opinions based on a limited, incomplete set of facts right? heck, why did you even bother reading the TFA if all you could possibly do is to make prejudiced opinions?
saying you are going to have sex w/ natalie portman doesn't mean it is going to happen either.
and your post is an opinion too, i'm curious what makes it more worthwhile than the others? or maybe you agree it isn't. then i'd ask why you bother posting. after all, it doesn't matter.
people are reading HER blog entry. how is that a hunch or a personal prejudice? it's a first hand account of the event. it doesn't get much better than that, unless you are there ... and i don't know about you but my ability to travel back in time and travel the world to validate every story i read is quite limited. anything you read will be someone's (other than you) interpretation of an event.
i'll be monitoring your posts closely. i expect all of them to read "i wasn't there / this didn't happen to me directly, no comment."
i encourage you to write your local FBI office and tell them you "want the president dead" to prove your theory. best of luck.
yeah it is different. it's the difference between saying "i wish for you to be harmed" and "i am going to harm you".