Yea thats a very good point. looks like apple might be a little scared..
DroidForums.net | Android Forum & News
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
New I-Phone Commercials...they strike back
- Thread starter vonfink13
- Start date
Yea thats a very good point. looks like apple might be a little scared..
dieselpowered
Member
LOL whether you hang up to check the movie times or don't...there is a good chance on the AT&T network your call is going to get dropped anyway 
So far, there are only a few things that I miss from the iPhone.
These commercials show none of them.
Although the DROID may not be (and I mean "MAY NOT") the iPhone killer, it's most definitely Verizon's iPhone, and as far as I'm concerned, quite superior to it.
Though I'll be honest: the iPhone had several better UI points to it, namely that it had no sharp corners on the windows. Everything was smooth and flowy.
These commercials show none of them.
Although the DROID may not be (and I mean "MAY NOT") the iPhone killer, it's most definitely Verizon's iPhone, and as far as I'm concerned, quite superior to it.
Though I'll be honest: the iPhone had several better UI points to it, namely that it had no sharp corners on the windows. Everything was smooth and flowy.
wirelesschick
New Member
Just another function that I am sure can be fixed in the OS upgrade. Not a VZ technology or Android 2.0 issue that I am aware of - - just an implementation detail that got over looked.
"Can your network do that?"
The response should be "Maybe not, but neither can yours throughout most of the country due to a crappy network."
Well, you also have to remember, some of those screens had to be simulated, cause you can't really have 'nice' video on video.
The one thing I will say, it depends mostly on conditions.
The iPhones my coworkers have, they are happy with. The thing I find funny is that one coworker has mentioned she gets better AT&T coverage where my company is right now, which is in Santa Barbara, a medium size town versus where she was, which was in the Bay Area, Palo Alto, to be more exact.
Palo Alto should have better, if not superior reception than Santa Barbara, especially closer to the Bay Area. But she said she gets better indoor reception in Santa Barbara than she does there.
What can I say but Your Results May Vary. The problem with Advertising is 'what will convince you more to buy our product.' And I am sure the flipside of this, there may be an iphoneforums.net or something retorting all the Verizon/Droid commercials and what not.
It's quite comical really. Apple in the past has been told to pull ads which show the phone performing at rate which is simply not how fast the phone works.
In the UK they flat out banned one in the past: UK Bans Apple’s ‘Really Fast’ iPhone 3G Ad | Gadget Lab | Wired.com
I fixed the conversation for you : )
now_that_ commercial may have brought tens of thousands of users over.
Last I heard, LTE hasn't set a standard for 4G voice, but it most likely will. Or they just use VoIP, either way. Thing is, everyone but Sprint is going to LTE, so all future iPhones and DROIDs will be in the same 4G boat. Which, for some years, will probably mean "still using 3G"... or in the case of the iPhone, probably EDGE.
DroidPilot
New Member
Actually all of functionality of the LTE network will be IP based. That is what will make is so blazing quick vs. todays CDMA technology. Currently while talking, the device is using a more advanced version of TDM (Time Division Multiplexing) which uses a rather different technology than IP based technologies.
Here is some highlights of it - https://www.lte.vzw.com/AboutLTE/VerizonWirelessLTENetwork/tabid/6003/Default.aspx
AT&T will continue to work on GSM based "Global" technologies like HSPA.
It's kinda like the US vs. Metric kind of thing - but I think the tide will drastically change when Sprint gets their WiMAX up and operational. Sprint will prolly beat VZW to 4G widespread deployment but I hope VZW is not far behind.
You're confusing different layers of the network stack. LTE is fast because it's doing nearly 100Mb/s per radio per cell... 326.4Mb/s using 4x4 MIMO. LTE is also very flexible, supporting many bandwidths between 20MHz and 1.25MHz. WiMax has a few options from 10MHz down, like HDPA/UMTS is 5MHz-only.
LTE actually supports both FDM and TDM. The higher level layers of the stack should not be a significant drain on performance (ideally.. but in practice, TCP/IP itself is well proven, so there's no reason to object). But do keep in mind, TCP/IP is still a higher layer protocol... it runs on top of LTE-SAE, which incorporates EPC (evolved packet core), basically LTE's answer to GPRS. There's nothing that dramatically different in the network architecture... the performance comes from higher throughput radios.
There currently is a group within LTE lobbying for a separate voice protocol, which runs at the EPC layer, rather than VoIP layered over TCP/IP. So it's correct to say that LTE is currently IP based.
WiMax can offer about approximately 75 Mb/s per radio per cell on a 20MHz link, though of course, they can employ the same MIMO techniques as used on LTE, HSPA, and 802.11n.
I'm not sure about EvDO.. it's everywhere, but limited to 1.25MHz channels and all, and it hasn't really seen much work. Both Verizon and Sprint are looking to 4G, and it's just the case that EvDO didn't have many other proponents.
HDPA (UMTS, W-CDMA, whatever of the many names you'd like to tag it with), on the other hand, has continued to evolve. It helps, performance-wise, that the protocol allocated 5MHz per cell. But is has artificially limited the rollout, based on spectrum ownership.. many locales didn't support 5MHz channels at 850/900MHz. The new frequencies allocated (2100MHz) have shorter range, required a whole new set of agreements. And this is crippled a bit at 850/900MHz, as they're usually only one 5MHz channel available, so the protocol is half duplex, versus GSM voice and all CDMA, which runs full duplex (separate channels for transmit and receive). You get these separate channels at 2100MHz, of course.
They started with a per-cell max of 14Mb/s with generic HSDPA, 21Mb/s with HDPA+, and 42Mb/s with MIMO. In some locales, they offer dual-cell coverage with MIMO at 2100MHz, so it's actually possible to see 7.2Mb/s on your phone (peak), if you're on one of these dual-cell 4x4 MIMO towers.. and you have the latest baseband processor on your device. That's awfully close/better-than the promises with Wi-Max. Sprint is saying 4-5Mb/s, but maybe that's considered typical, not sure. Clear is saying they'll get to 10-12Mb/s peak, Real Soon Now. EvDO peaks at around 3.1Mb/s, but most devices support this. LTE folks are also claiming similar, 8-12Mb/s to start with. Both LTE and Wi-Max have future plans leading to a gigabit per cell.
Verizon's big advantage is their ownership of the 700MHz C-Block.. no, not the German rap group, but 22MHz of sweet, sweet lower-UHF bandwidth. They have this everywhere... this is part of the old NTSC spectrum not permitted for ATSC use. Not as much total bandwidth as the WiMax people (see below), but they'll get much better coverage nationwide. One of the big reasons Verizon had better 3G coverage today is that they were one of the two possible 850MHz licensees in just about every market in the country.
Sprint + Nextel (along with Clearwire, Comcast, Google, Intel, and a few others, pooled together to form Clear) have quite a bit of spectrum at 2.5GHz, at least 90MHz in many areas. However, the Wi-Max standard only allows channels up to 10MHz wide. And 2.5GHz has a much shorter range, as well as taking much more attenuation through buildings and, especially, foliage (I design radio systems for use in robotics... our current 430MHz technology, based on 5MHz highly-modified Wifi with optional TDM mode, completely destroys the more common 2.4GHz radios, particularly through forests and in buildings).
I think I'd worry if I weren't either of these guys, come 4G. AT&T has a competitive change... they won 700MHz block B, which is 12MHz... jsut over half the bandwidth that Verizon won. But in some places, that won' matter.. the low frequency will be the deciding factor, not the top network speed. Otherise, there's not enough channel space on today's cellular frequencies to compete. Some smaller WiMax companies are going to higher-still frequencies... plenty of bandwidth there, but the range stinks, and you have to deal with increasingly less penetration though forests and buildings, rain fade, etc.
I would also worry if I wasn't backing LTE in the long term. You can look and see how far the GSM folks have pushed W-CDMA/HPSA, which started out as a poor alternative to EvDO. There's every reason to believe they'll do the same moving LTE forward. There are certainly some powers behind WiMax, but it's not the whole world. Things improve faster with it's essentialy the whole world doing the push.
Last edited:
DroidPilot
New Member
Great post Hazydave!
Donkey Hodie
Member
Yeah, great post Hazydave but it's a lot more fun to argue whose going to win without any facts 
You should try doing digital radio for a living! Computers were SO much easier (I worked at Commodore for nearly 12 years)...
