- This topic has 120 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
CDMA ENG.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM #514515February 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM #513604
CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]Interesting FLU.
On the Passat:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=4159%5B/quote%5DWell, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.
That’s the significance on some of these open O/S (android in particular and variants)…Because they are finding ways to non-phone devices such as instrumentation/netbooks/medical devices.. That’s something you won’t be seeing in a closed platform in the short term.
Profits/dollars for third party companies and developers for mobile O/S apps were once limited by the cell phone carriers (Verizon/ATT/Sprint/etc and corresponding carriers overseas), because traditional O/S were designed specifically only for cell phones. These open O/S’es changes the playing field significantly since you aren’t exclusively tied down to a cell phone (subject to all the dogleashes from service providers). That’s why I don’t waste time trying to build a one-hit app on a cell phone, too much of a PITA these days…The bucks are in platform porting and applications to other non-traditional uses where you have much less competition and red-tape to hoop through. If Sun had structured J2ME as a complete stack as Google did for Android versus a bunch of generic API’s, it wouldn’t have ended up as the way it did.
Android isn’t necessary the most advanced of best platform. But what it does have going for it is (1) open-ness (2) backing/marketing from a company that you know isn’t going away in the near future. Lots of people wanted an open platform, but don’t want to jump on it because fear of whether it’s going to be around tomorrow (concerns of support/sustaining/etc).
February 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM #513751CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]Interesting FLU.
On the Passat:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=4159%5B/quote%5DWell, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.
That’s the significance on some of these open O/S (android in particular and variants)…Because they are finding ways to non-phone devices such as instrumentation/netbooks/medical devices.. That’s something you won’t be seeing in a closed platform in the short term.
Profits/dollars for third party companies and developers for mobile O/S apps were once limited by the cell phone carriers (Verizon/ATT/Sprint/etc and corresponding carriers overseas), because traditional O/S were designed specifically only for cell phones. These open O/S’es changes the playing field significantly since you aren’t exclusively tied down to a cell phone (subject to all the dogleashes from service providers). That’s why I don’t waste time trying to build a one-hit app on a cell phone, too much of a PITA these days…The bucks are in platform porting and applications to other non-traditional uses where you have much less competition and red-tape to hoop through. If Sun had structured J2ME as a complete stack as Google did for Android versus a bunch of generic API’s, it wouldn’t have ended up as the way it did.
Android isn’t necessary the most advanced of best platform. But what it does have going for it is (1) open-ness (2) backing/marketing from a company that you know isn’t going away in the near future. Lots of people wanted an open platform, but don’t want to jump on it because fear of whether it’s going to be around tomorrow (concerns of support/sustaining/etc).
February 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM #514174CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]Interesting FLU.
On the Passat:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=4159%5B/quote%5DWell, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.
That’s the significance on some of these open O/S (android in particular and variants)…Because they are finding ways to non-phone devices such as instrumentation/netbooks/medical devices.. That’s something you won’t be seeing in a closed platform in the short term.
Profits/dollars for third party companies and developers for mobile O/S apps were once limited by the cell phone carriers (Verizon/ATT/Sprint/etc and corresponding carriers overseas), because traditional O/S were designed specifically only for cell phones. These open O/S’es changes the playing field significantly since you aren’t exclusively tied down to a cell phone (subject to all the dogleashes from service providers). That’s why I don’t waste time trying to build a one-hit app on a cell phone, too much of a PITA these days…The bucks are in platform porting and applications to other non-traditional uses where you have much less competition and red-tape to hoop through. If Sun had structured J2ME as a complete stack as Google did for Android versus a bunch of generic API’s, it wouldn’t have ended up as the way it did.
Android isn’t necessary the most advanced of best platform. But what it does have going for it is (1) open-ness (2) backing/marketing from a company that you know isn’t going away in the near future. Lots of people wanted an open platform, but don’t want to jump on it because fear of whether it’s going to be around tomorrow (concerns of support/sustaining/etc).
February 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM #514267CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]Interesting FLU.
On the Passat:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=4159%5B/quote%5DWell, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.
That’s the significance on some of these open O/S (android in particular and variants)…Because they are finding ways to non-phone devices such as instrumentation/netbooks/medical devices.. That’s something you won’t be seeing in a closed platform in the short term.
Profits/dollars for third party companies and developers for mobile O/S apps were once limited by the cell phone carriers (Verizon/ATT/Sprint/etc and corresponding carriers overseas), because traditional O/S were designed specifically only for cell phones. These open O/S’es changes the playing field significantly since you aren’t exclusively tied down to a cell phone (subject to all the dogleashes from service providers). That’s why I don’t waste time trying to build a one-hit app on a cell phone, too much of a PITA these days…The bucks are in platform porting and applications to other non-traditional uses where you have much less competition and red-tape to hoop through. If Sun had structured J2ME as a complete stack as Google did for Android versus a bunch of generic API’s, it wouldn’t have ended up as the way it did.
Android isn’t necessary the most advanced of best platform. But what it does have going for it is (1) open-ness (2) backing/marketing from a company that you know isn’t going away in the near future. Lots of people wanted an open platform, but don’t want to jump on it because fear of whether it’s going to be around tomorrow (concerns of support/sustaining/etc).
February 16, 2010 at 2:05 PM #514520CoronitaParticipant[quote=briansd1]Interesting FLU.
On the Passat:
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=4159%5B/quote%5DWell, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.
That’s the significance on some of these open O/S (android in particular and variants)…Because they are finding ways to non-phone devices such as instrumentation/netbooks/medical devices.. That’s something you won’t be seeing in a closed platform in the short term.
Profits/dollars for third party companies and developers for mobile O/S apps were once limited by the cell phone carriers (Verizon/ATT/Sprint/etc and corresponding carriers overseas), because traditional O/S were designed specifically only for cell phones. These open O/S’es changes the playing field significantly since you aren’t exclusively tied down to a cell phone (subject to all the dogleashes from service providers). That’s why I don’t waste time trying to build a one-hit app on a cell phone, too much of a PITA these days…The bucks are in platform porting and applications to other non-traditional uses where you have much less competition and red-tape to hoop through. If Sun had structured J2ME as a complete stack as Google did for Android versus a bunch of generic API’s, it wouldn’t have ended up as the way it did.
Android isn’t necessary the most advanced of best platform. But what it does have going for it is (1) open-ness (2) backing/marketing from a company that you know isn’t going away in the near future. Lots of people wanted an open platform, but don’t want to jump on it because fear of whether it’s going to be around tomorrow (concerns of support/sustaining/etc).
February 16, 2010 at 2:51 PM #513624briansd1
Guest[quote=flu]
Well, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.[/quote]I agree. The carriers want to perpetuate the subscription model where they can charge for every little bit of service.
Verizon is notorious for that.
That’s why there’s a whole community of iPhone users worldwide who like to unlock/jailbreak their handsets.
Open platform is good.
February 16, 2010 at 2:51 PM #513771Guest[quote=flu]
Well, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.[/quote]I agree. The carriers want to perpetuate the subscription model where they can charge for every little bit of service.
Verizon is notorious for that.
That’s why there’s a whole community of iPhone users worldwide who like to unlock/jailbreak their handsets.
Open platform is good.
February 16, 2010 at 2:51 PM #514194Guest[quote=flu]
Well, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.[/quote]I agree. The carriers want to perpetuate the subscription model where they can charge for every little bit of service.
Verizon is notorious for that.
That’s why there’s a whole community of iPhone users worldwide who like to unlock/jailbreak their handsets.
Open platform is good.
February 16, 2010 at 2:51 PM #514287Guest[quote=flu]
Well, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.[/quote]I agree. The carriers want to perpetuate the subscription model where they can charge for every little bit of service.
Verizon is notorious for that.
That’s why there’s a whole community of iPhone users worldwide who like to unlock/jailbreak their handsets.
Open platform is good.
February 16, 2010 at 2:51 PM #514540Guest[quote=flu]
Well, I got news for you. Most of the capabilities for connectivity is already available right now…The issue is that traditional cell phone carriers want to lock it down, because the more open/unlocked these features are, the less profits they can extract from you. That’s why carriers like to lock down things like tethering/etc. Most smartphone has cell/wifi/bluetooth, limitations to always remain connected using different means is hampered by the carriers…because carriers obviously don’t like things they can’t charge for.[/quote]I agree. The carriers want to perpetuate the subscription model where they can charge for every little bit of service.
Verizon is notorious for that.
That’s why there’s a whole community of iPhone users worldwide who like to unlock/jailbreak their handsets.
Open platform is good.
February 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM #513709an
Participant[quote=flu]
And so long as WinMobile depends on a stylus to do anything, it’s a big fail in my book in terms of usability. BTW, isn’t this the Nth Win Mobile core team in MSFT after the pretty much fired the previous team (again)?[/quote]
I hope this comment is written before you see info about Windows Phone 7 Series. Phones w/ WP7S will be capacitive and no stylus. I’m most excited about WP7S. I would definitely consider this as a game changer at this point in time.Brian, I hope you know in 3+ years, both VZW and AT&T will be using LTE. VZW will be rolling out LTE to 30 markets by the end of this year and the rest by 2011 or 2012 (forgot exactly). AT&T will start rolling out LTE in 2011. 3G and 3.5G is so yesterday :-), it’s all about LTE looking forward.
February 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM #513856Participant[quote=flu]
And so long as WinMobile depends on a stylus to do anything, it’s a big fail in my book in terms of usability. BTW, isn’t this the Nth Win Mobile core team in MSFT after the pretty much fired the previous team (again)?[/quote]
I hope this comment is written before you see info about Windows Phone 7 Series. Phones w/ WP7S will be capacitive and no stylus. I’m most excited about WP7S. I would definitely consider this as a game changer at this point in time.Brian, I hope you know in 3+ years, both VZW and AT&T will be using LTE. VZW will be rolling out LTE to 30 markets by the end of this year and the rest by 2011 or 2012 (forgot exactly). AT&T will start rolling out LTE in 2011. 3G and 3.5G is so yesterday :-), it’s all about LTE looking forward.
February 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM #514281Participant[quote=flu]
And so long as WinMobile depends on a stylus to do anything, it’s a big fail in my book in terms of usability. BTW, isn’t this the Nth Win Mobile core team in MSFT after the pretty much fired the previous team (again)?[/quote]
I hope this comment is written before you see info about Windows Phone 7 Series. Phones w/ WP7S will be capacitive and no stylus. I’m most excited about WP7S. I would definitely consider this as a game changer at this point in time.Brian, I hope you know in 3+ years, both VZW and AT&T will be using LTE. VZW will be rolling out LTE to 30 markets by the end of this year and the rest by 2011 or 2012 (forgot exactly). AT&T will start rolling out LTE in 2011. 3G and 3.5G is so yesterday :-), it’s all about LTE looking forward.
February 16, 2010 at 6:11 PM #514372Participant[quote=flu]
And so long as WinMobile depends on a stylus to do anything, it’s a big fail in my book in terms of usability. BTW, isn’t this the Nth Win Mobile core team in MSFT after the pretty much fired the previous team (again)?[/quote]
I hope this comment is written before you see info about Windows Phone 7 Series. Phones w/ WP7S will be capacitive and no stylus. I’m most excited about WP7S. I would definitely consider this as a game changer at this point in time.Brian, I hope you know in 3+ years, both VZW and AT&T will be using LTE. VZW will be rolling out LTE to 30 markets by the end of this year and the rest by 2011 or 2012 (forgot exactly). AT&T will start rolling out LTE in 2011. 3G and 3.5G is so yesterday :-), it’s all about LTE looking forward.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.