The Verizon curve has WiFi?! Huzzah for waiting on my upgrade! I love my 8330 and have been waiting for a decent option to upgrade to. #lgchocolatetouch
@walker2151: You DON'T. You SIT THERE, and listen to the ENTIRE DAMN THING in ONE SITTING. That's right, you damn kids got it too spoiled these days, with your "next" button and your "fast forward" and whatnot. In my day, we had to switch to Side B on our Lenny Kravitz cassettes, dammit! When we were walking uphill 15 miles in the snow and... #carcdrom
@bzr: Do you remember how fantastic it was when a good song would line up with another good song on opposite sides of the cassette, so like you could listen to the song on Side A, flip the cassette (or auto reverse if you were ballin' cept we didn't say ballin' we said "phat" I think, I dunno, it was a long time ago, possibly "da bomb") but you'd flip that shit to Side B, and maybe have to rewind or fastforward just a little bit to hear the other good song on the album... yah, it was money. Cds changed things, but napster... wow how the times have changed. I used to have to listen to the same stupid cassette for like a month until I saved enough to buy another damn cassette... you kids these days. #carcdrom
I work at a mall kiosk that sells cellphone accessories and I wish this standard would be adopted here. There are so many freakin' types of chargers and it gets so annoying trying to find the correct one for somebody's random phone. #universalchargingsolution
Wow, why is every "regulation" or "standardization" for technology not go along with what the industry is already using? We should have the main usb connector, and a mobile/small connector.
What does every portable hard drive, computer accessory, mobile phone (that uses usb) use so far? MINIUSB, not micro. #universalchargingsolution
@James Kinney: Why would you want mini as a standard, when you anticipate phones thinner than mini as an eventuality?
I think micro is a better choice, because we WILL have phones thinner than mini, and probably sooner than you or I think. The point of a standard is to stay relevant as long as possible, and picking the fatter format when "thin is in" would be a bad call.
And I have a microUSB using phone, and my connector is working just fine, and I tend to abuse my electronics. Maybe its just my luck though. #universalchargingsolution
Many of the phone manufacturers apparently saw this coming because we have been noticing many of the newer phones out there have already standardized on a micro USB port for their connectivity. Even better, there are converters for those using mini to change the chargers to micro for only a few bucks.
This concept has been floated almost since the inception of mobile phones. Nokia had the standard on power adapter plugs for many years and a few other cell phone companies were using their design, despite it not being an official standard. So, kudos to the companies pushing this forward.
Is Apple on whatever committee is considering this? I agree with the other folks here mentioning that, despite Apple's (supposed) reliance on standards, I am concerned that they might not add the micro port on the device. It seems even more unlikely that, despite it being possible, they would switch from their proprietary connector to a universal one. But, if they did - I would be sending a nice assortment of "I love you in a special sort of way" candies to Mr. Jobs. #universalchargingsolution
I have no doubt that they (all the competing companies) will find a way to screw this up. I'll just stick with my iPod and my iPhone. Works in my car, all the cables are interchangeable, etc.
The only thing this will end up helping is the phone makers, so they can sell the phone without a charger. I doubt they will lower the cost of the phone because of that, and average joe consumer will probably have to buy one with the new standard anyway, so that will be another $20 when buying a cell phone.
I don't really buy the 51,000 ton number. Like most statistics used to support a position, I suspect that very, very optimistic calculations were used. #universalchargingsolution
@CraigJ: Yeah, that may be true, but you'll only have to spend that $20 for a new charger once. Afterwards, the next time you get a new phone, the old charger will still work with it, so unless it breaks, you don't need to buy another new charger. And if it does break, because they're all the same, it should be really easy to get a new one.
Also, if a friend is over at your place, you could let him charge his phone there if need be, which you could only do now if you had the same phone. There are all sorts of possibilities that this brings to the table. #universalchargingsolution
I don't even see why America has to hop on board per se - I mean, the cellular industry is pretty international, and assuming that manufacturers will want to sell as widely as possible, it would be logical for American and foreign manufacturers to adopt this standard and sell those phones into the US market, regardless of whether the US government passes a law or or adopts a regulation requiring it. #universalchargingsolution
@Canoehead: you're forgetting that there is a strong incentive for manufacturers to have a proprietary charger - they can charge a lot more for replacement devices, and even license the rights. Manufacturers may be on board with this idea now for a number of reasons (not the least of which is public pressure) but they could have all adopted a system like mini-USB years ago but chose not to in favor of being able to sell high-margin peripherals. #universalchargingsolution
@Canoehead: Companies will do what ever is cheapest for them. Think of power supplies that are now for the most part 240/110V. It means one production line for the whole globe. #universalchargingsolution
@weatherman: Ding! Weatherman wins the thread. That's 51,000 tons of profits sitting out there - those phone chargers probably cost a couple bucks to make, but sell at 6x that. You lose money on your main item, and make money on all the items that make the main item work. #universalchargingsolution
@tatublu: i doubt it, actually apple has pushed tons of standards, gizmodo made a post about it a while ago. i think we would see apple push the iphone adapter as a standerd before adopting micro usb... #universalchargingsolution
I think this post gives AT&T far too much credit and is insufficiently critical given the degree to which AT&T and its competitors (esp. Verizon and T-Mobile) have been in the media recently.
My read of the situation is this: AT&T is struggling with insufficient network resources and insufficient monetization of their existing network. All of the telcos would probably love to do away with the new FCC stand on net neutrality. However, only AT&T seems to be acting as if it is in a life-or-death situation because of net neutrality.
If AT&T's competitors feel that they will have more than sufficient network resources and a competitive enough pricing structure to be compliant with the new definition of net neutrality being imposed on them, and they feel that AT&T lacks those resources, they will go ahead and offer unlimited voice and data plans and contractless plans, support Skype and other 3rd party VOIP and messaging systems, etc. In other words, if they think they can get ahead of what people want to do on their network and still make a profit, Verizon and T-Mobile can let the new FCC regulations strangle those cellular providers that can't maintain that level of network usage. And it sure looks like that's what Verizon and T-Mobile are doing.
E.g., taking the projected pricing according to leaked details of T-Mobile's Project Dark: would you rather have an iPhone 3G on AT&T, or a smartphone based on any other platform than the iPhone, more or unlimited minutes, unlimited text, and unlimited data for the SAME PRICE, plus network speeds that are supposed to be OVER TWICE AS FAST as AT&T's projected (not current) network speeds?
In short, AT&T needs cash to compete. It needs a kickback from Barnes & Noble for providing the ability to download miniscule amounts of data to Nooks. It needs its employees to do everything they can to try to stop the FCC. It needs a cash settlement from the LCD industry, which has already been investigated for and found guilty of price fixing in the past.
@cobaltage: Yes, because obviously the vast, vast revenues they get from B&N for Nook and the $585M from this suit will make a noticeable change in the cost structure for a company that had revenues of what, like $120B last year...
"Insufficient monetization of their existing network?" WTF does that mean? The implication of your statement is that they aren't making the money off the network that they could? Only that doesn't seem consistent with your philosophy. Perhaps you should start working with smaller words and smaller concepts and build up to bigger things. #lcdpricefixing
@AmphetamineCrown: So, you're counterargument is that a company that has revenues of $120B doesn't need to worry about $585M, or that it offers services without considering the effect on its network or how much compensation it receives? This is your "philosophy"?
Here's some reading for you on the general picture:
I would say that AT&T signed on for the iPhone 3G thinking it had some idea about how many people might buy it, and how much data they would be using. Whatever those numbers were, AT&T was wrong on both counts. Do you think they planned to not make a profit until month 17 of a 24 month contract for an iPhone 3G? "Not making a profit" means "losing money," by the way. AT&T is basically complaining that they hadn't anticipated an average use of 400MB per month per iPhone. They signed on millions of customers for the iPhone 3G; and they play catch up on subsidies and operational costs on each and every two-year contract for 70% of the duration. I call that "insufficient monetization of their network." What do you call it?
@cobaltage: The *only* point I'd agree on with you is that AT&T didn't anticipate a 5000% rise in data demand in 3 years. Bottom line, you can regurgitate a bunch of links, but you still can't make a turd into gold. Your argument is stupid.
First, it is premised on AT&T taking a bunch of steps to increase near term revenues. Only none of the things you cited have any prospect of creating near term revenue. The nook isn't going to generate dick, and probably has the same cycle in terms of payback as the iPhone. The LCD suit will be litigated forever. They will lucky to see any money for several years.
Second, "monetizing assets" means taking assets--things you have--and finding ways to generate money off them for minimal investment. Whatever you are talking about, whatever the hell it is, it isn't "monetizing an asset." You seem to be implying that they need to invest in their network--well they have. To the tune of $38B in the past two years. And will be spending another $18B this year. That isn't monetizing an asset, that is building new infrastructure. Completely different calculus. Monetizing asset = taking paid for asset and realizing revenue. Investment means making capital expenditures and calculating a return.
Third, do I think they planned not to make a profit on the iPhone until well into the contract? Yes, dumbass. It is just another way of saying that the return on their investment took time. The fact that they are making a profit--even after month 17--means they invested money in the iPhone and then got more money back. The fact that their investment had not had a return yet in month 16 doesn't mean they "lost money." Just means it hadn't turned a profit yet--they only "lost money" if the contract ended in mo. 16, and, as we know, its a two year contract. The iPhone carries one of the largest subsidies ever paid by a carrier. You really think, that after paying a $400 subsidy on day 1, it is reasonable to expect them to turn a profit the first month?
Like I said, learn what the words mean. They it becomes easier to put them into coherent order to form logical arguments. #lcdpricefixing
@AmphetamineCrown: I'll tell you what. You win. AT&T is doing great. The LCD industry won't make a cash settlement. AT&T doesn't care about $500M because a company that makes $120B does so by not making $500M. And yes, the Nook uses exactly as much data and costs just as much to have on the network as an iPhone. You're a genius. #lcdpricefixing
@Alessar: God help me, why? If you actually use more than 25 SMS/mo., you might as well get their $5 plan for 200.
Seems like the world falls into a couple different categories. Serious SMSers, who pay almost nothing per SMS. NonSMSers, like me, who pay nothing because we don't use it. OK, I'll admit that there may be people stuck in the twilight... But, we're really talking about less than $5/mo here. Guess I just have a hard time getting worked up over it. #lcdpricefixing
@MMGuru: I understand that. But, before the advent of the big buckets 'o voice minutes, you used to pay to receive voice calls too. That sucked donkey balls when it was someone you didn't want to talk too...
I still fail to understand SMS anyway. My wife SMSs me. It is no more or less difficult, I would think, to write a bloody email. Only you get more characters. And a better guarantee of delivery. And other features. And, virtually every phone is data enabled, or at least email enabled. So someone educate me, why do people give a flying toss about SMS? #lcdpricefixing
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
[gizmodo.com] #lgchocolatetouch
11/05/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
[www.pacificgeek.com] #carcdrom
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/28/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
Even Apple may struggle against the force of a Union. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
10/24/09
What does every portable hard drive, computer accessory, mobile phone (that uses usb) use so far? MINIUSB, not micro. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/25/09
when cell phones are thinner than the miniusb i will believe you.
the micro is a piece of crap!!! i hate using it it never feels correct sliding into the phone. feels cheap and like it will break.
miniusb ftw! #universalchargingsolution
10/27/09
I think micro is a better choice, because we WILL have phones thinner than mini, and probably sooner than you or I think. The point of a standard is to stay relevant as long as possible, and picking the fatter format when "thin is in" would be a bad call.
And I have a microUSB using phone, and my connector is working just fine, and I tend to abuse my electronics. Maybe its just my luck though. #universalchargingsolution
10/27/09
10/24/09
This concept has been floated almost since the inception of mobile phones. Nokia had the standard on power adapter plugs for many years and a few other cell phone companies were using their design, despite it not being an official standard. So, kudos to the companies pushing this forward.
Is Apple on whatever committee is considering this? I agree with the other folks here mentioning that, despite Apple's (supposed) reliance on standards, I am concerned that they might not add the micro port on the device. It seems even more unlikely that, despite it being possible, they would switch from their proprietary connector to a universal one. But, if they did - I would be sending a nice assortment of "I love you in a special sort of way" candies to Mr. Jobs. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
The only thing this will end up helping is the phone makers, so they can sell the phone without a charger. I doubt they will lower the cost of the phone because of that, and average joe consumer will probably have to buy one with the new standard anyway, so that will be another $20 when buying a cell phone.
I don't really buy the 51,000 ton number. Like most statistics used to support a position, I suspect that very, very optimistic calculations were used. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
Also, if a friend is over at your place, you could let him charge his phone there if need be, which you could only do now if you had the same phone. There are all sorts of possibilities that this brings to the table. #universalchargingsolution
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/25/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/21/09
My read of the situation is this: AT&T is struggling with insufficient network resources and insufficient monetization of their existing network. All of the telcos would probably love to do away with the new FCC stand on net neutrality. However, only AT&T seems to be acting as if it is in a life-or-death situation because of net neutrality.
If AT&T's competitors feel that they will have more than sufficient network resources and a competitive enough pricing structure to be compliant with the new definition of net neutrality being imposed on them, and they feel that AT&T lacks those resources, they will go ahead and offer unlimited voice and data plans and contractless plans, support Skype and other 3rd party VOIP and messaging systems, etc. In other words, if they think they can get ahead of what people want to do on their network and still make a profit, Verizon and T-Mobile can let the new FCC regulations strangle those cellular providers that can't maintain that level of network usage. And it sure looks like that's what Verizon and T-Mobile are doing.
E.g., taking the projected pricing according to leaked details of T-Mobile's Project Dark: would you rather have an iPhone 3G on AT&T, or a smartphone based on any other platform than the iPhone, more or unlimited minutes, unlimited text, and unlimited data for the SAME PRICE, plus network speeds that are supposed to be OVER TWICE AS FAST as AT&T's projected (not current) network speeds?
In short, AT&T needs cash to compete. It needs a kickback from Barnes & Noble for providing the ability to download miniscule amounts of data to Nooks. It needs its employees to do everything they can to try to stop the FCC. It needs a cash settlement from the LCD industry, which has already been investigated for and found guilty of price fixing in the past.
Muahahaha.
10/21/09
"Insufficient monetization of their existing network?" WTF does that mean? The implication of your statement is that they aren't making the money off the network that they could? Only that doesn't seem consistent with your philosophy. Perhaps you should start working with smaller words and smaller concepts and build up to bigger things. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
Here's some reading for you on the general picture:
[www.mobilitysite.com]
[apple.slashdot.org]
[news.cnet.com]
[www.engadget.com]
[tech.slashdot.org]
[arstechnica.com]
I would say that AT&T signed on for the iPhone 3G thinking it had some idea about how many people might buy it, and how much data they would be using. Whatever those numbers were, AT&T was wrong on both counts. Do you think they planned to not make a profit until month 17 of a 24 month contract for an iPhone 3G? "Not making a profit" means "losing money," by the way. AT&T is basically complaining that they hadn't anticipated an average use of 400MB per month per iPhone. They signed on millions of customers for the iPhone 3G; and they play catch up on subsidies and operational costs on each and every two-year contract for 70% of the duration. I call that "insufficient monetization of their network." What do you call it?
10/22/09
First, it is premised on AT&T taking a bunch of steps to increase near term revenues. Only none of the things you cited have any prospect of creating near term revenue. The nook isn't going to generate dick, and probably has the same cycle in terms of payback as the iPhone. The LCD suit will be litigated forever. They will lucky to see any money for several years.
Second, "monetizing assets" means taking assets--things you have--and finding ways to generate money off them for minimal investment. Whatever you are talking about, whatever the hell it is, it isn't "monetizing an asset." You seem to be implying that they need to invest in their network--well they have. To the tune of $38B in the past two years. And will be spending another $18B this year. That isn't monetizing an asset, that is building new infrastructure. Completely different calculus. Monetizing asset = taking paid for asset and realizing revenue. Investment means making capital expenditures and calculating a return.
Third, do I think they planned not to make a profit on the iPhone until well into the contract? Yes, dumbass. It is just another way of saying that the return on their investment took time. The fact that they are making a profit--even after month 17--means they invested money in the iPhone and then got more money back. The fact that their investment had not had a return yet in month 16 doesn't mean they "lost money." Just means it hadn't turned a profit yet--they only "lost money" if the contract ended in mo. 16, and, as we know, its a two year contract. The iPhone carries one of the largest subsidies ever paid by a carrier. You really think, that after paying a $400 subsidy on day 1, it is reasonable to expect them to turn a profit the first month?
Like I said, learn what the words mean. They it becomes easier to put them into coherent order to form logical arguments. #lcdpricefixing
10/22/09
10/21/09
And they're strangely comfortable with it. #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
"I don't see why not!" #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
10/21/09
Seems like the world falls into a couple different categories. Serious SMSers, who pay almost nothing per SMS. NonSMSers, like me, who pay nothing because we don't use it. OK, I'll admit that there may be people stuck in the twilight... But, we're really talking about less than $5/mo here. Guess I just have a hard time getting worked up over it. #lcdpricefixing
10/21/09
10/21/09
I still fail to understand SMS anyway. My wife SMSs me. It is no more or less difficult, I would think, to write a bloody email. Only you get more characters. And a better guarantee of delivery. And other features. And, virtually every phone is data enabled, or at least email enabled. So someone educate me, why do people give a flying toss about SMS? #lcdpricefixing