bigsnake49
-
Posts
3,790 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
43
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Forums
Posts posted by bigsnake49
-
-
Robert, we just need to keep up these highly technical and informative discussions and not have it become another Sprintusers or Howardforums.
-
6
-
-
Ah, Sprint is using the Cisco CRS as their backbone router so no 40Gb ethernet. Looks like 10Gb and 100Gb only for them for now.
I thought that the Ciena kit allows them to gracefully migrate to 40G, 100G and 400G in phases.
-
Sprint had some problems before the merger, namely sparse coverage in some places that collocating on IDEN sites made better. But back then they were known for being innovative both on the device side and the plan side. At the time I thought they should have merged with Alltel. Alltel had very low debt and would have given them excellent coverage in some rural areas. Had they also tried to bring USCC into the fold, the definitely would have been a powerhouse and would not have hidden whenever somebody mention rural area. All three companies also had wireline division which would have subsidized their wireless ambitions. I thought they got rid of their wireline assets too early. They should have milked them for a while longer. They probably wait out the rebinding mess and then swoop in to pick out the carcass. They could have provided the CDMA network for Nextel's QCHAT. Oh, well, what might have been.
-
Nice to see that they're at least doing some upgrades to their wireline division.
Yeah, I think they're going from 10Gb/sec to 400Gb/sec. Quite a jump. They still need to acquire a metro fiber loop company and develop some sort of a cloud presence. Actually now that I think about it, Sprint really needs to set them free and sign a long term contract with them. They can then merge with Level 3 and or Global Crossing and start becoming more of a player in the cloud industry. Let's face it, we will all live in the cloud fairly soon. It will be nice is the wireline division is not hamstrung by Sprint's financial condition. Heck, maybe Century Link may absorb them.
-
Individually, no. But multiply by the tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, and data consumption becomes a problem. Those who use the greatest amount of data are most likely to be using data at any given time -- peak or not. Even with a fair and proportional scheduler assigning time slots or resource blocks, those who are almost incessantly using data (e.g. streaming) do affect access opportunity for everyone else.
AJ
AJ, price peak/off peak data differently. It will solve the problem if you're capacity constrained. Those that like to stream video to their car while driving the kiddos to school during rush hour will think twice. That way my updating my schedule will come through instantly.
Mind you, my consumption pattern is like yours. Email, calendar, contacts and occasional search. No YouTube. Occasional 64k streaming once a year when I go on a long car trip.
-
Remember also it's 400Gb/sec not 400GB/sec.
-
3
-
-
To play devil's advocate, which one of these two Sprint subs is more of a problem: the sub who never tethers but streams 15 GB of audio/video over the network per month or the sub who tethers occasionally but uses only 500 MB of total data over the network per month?
AJ
Neither. Data consumption in general does not matter. It is data demand at peak times that is the problem. At those peak times because of the fairness naturally built in in most modern air interfaces, a person cannot hog all the bandwidth at peak times. The system naturally throttles you because you have to share the bandwidth with all the other users at the time. So if both users are using the same amount of peak bandwidth they are equally guilty or not. Networks are designed for bandwidth at peak times. If you want to discourage people from using bandwidth at peak times, then have off-peak/on-peak billing like the good-ole days.
-
Saw this article this morning. Should give Sprint plenty of headroom for future traffic increases.
That's just for their internet backbone. Not local backhaul. They really need to start buying up some metro fiber loops. I think Level 3 has a quite a few.
-
A little bit more info on S-Voice. They just re-skinned Vlingo.
And Vlingo looks *nothing* like siri:
http://hotcellularphone.com/wp-content/ ... Store.jpeg
http://jailbrokentips.com/Free-Cydia-Ap ... eather.png
If they just licensed Vlingo then it would appear they deliberately re-skinned it to look like a lot like siri:
http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... G_3820.jpg
That seems to back up apple's claim that "Samsung has copied the smallest detail of the iPhone".
-
They don't have face unlock, but they applied for a patent anyway, after it was announced as a feature on ICS.
http://www.phonearen...-patent_id25205
If they only licensed voice recognition, how are they claiming that the GS3 should be blocked from import for the "S Voice" infringing on SIRI? That is the pinnacle of hypocrasy.
They're claiming infringement on putting it all together, the voice recognition and the search on Wolfram Alpha. Nothing stopped Samsung on coming up with that integration first. Instead Samsung waited until Apple came up with it. Once in a while I would like for Samsung to innovate in this area. BTW, the other major claim in this infringement suit is "Data Detectors" which is the technology to detect a string as being let's say a phone number and dial it. There are different strings besides phone numbers. Apple has had a patent on that since 1996.
-
They don't have face unlock, but they applied for a patent anyway, after it was announced as a feature on ICS.
http://www.phonearen...-patent_id25205
If they only licensed voice recognition, how are they claiming that the GS3 should be blocked from import for the "S Voice" infringing on SIRI? That is the pinnacle of hypocrasy.
They applied for a patent before it was announced. Their face recognition application uses different technology than what Google uses, which itself is patented but not for mobile devices.
-
And apple copied voice recognition, pull down notification bar, face unlock etc. But I suppose that's fine because they "made it better" right?
Sent from my CM9 Toro
Apple has not copied voice recognition. They licensed the technology from Nuance that has been doing voice recognition for a long time and has a hella of a lot of patents in the area.
-
And apple copied voice recognition, pull down notification bar, face unlock etc. But I suppose that's fine because they "made it better" right?
Sent from my CM9 Toro
Wait, Apple has face unlock? Where?
-
Let it be known that I am filing a patent on the gesture of typing "Sprint" into a post in The Forums at S4GRU. I ask that all others cease and desist.
AJ
Don't be silly AJ. I have already filed on that!
-
Here is a good article of a request to Apple to focus on battery technology: http://news.cnet.com...l-battery-tech/
Now this is the type of things Apple could be doing. And they can patent a battery technology. That would make a lot of sense.
Robert
Actually Apple has done quite a bit of work on battery controllers. Their batteries are a bit more sophisticated than other people's. They just have not bothered with battery chemistry before. They might, though.
-
And that's where we disagree. Intuitive gestures should not be able to be patented. To me, that's like saying all computers can have a power button, but Apple patented pushing the button, so everyone else needs to do something else with that button. And another one slides the button, the other does a swirly motion to the button.
If you think about it, all those things on a screen are virtual buttons. Slide it, press it, it doesn't matter, it's a button. And pinch and zoom is just replicating actions you do with a scrolling mouse that you cannot do on a tablet. This kind of patent logic is Draconian, and it would box everyone into a corner of the technological dungeon.
But I think Apple is OK with doing exactly that.Robert
Robert, they can invent a new user interface mechanism like Microsoft did with the Kinect or people have done with gloves. It's not the gestures that you're patenting, it's what results those gestures produce within the context of the particular interface paradigm. Pinch to zoom is not an intuitive gesture out in real life. What does it do in real life? It might get you some bewildered looks, but that's about it. After you see it in action on an iPhone, then it becomes a natural, not before. I was one of the first people to get an iPhone. People would look at me kind of strange on the plane when they saw me pinch or flip. Finally somebody had the temerity to ask me what I was doing. I showed them them. Ahhhh, they said that is very smart....
Let me give you an example. Let's say you have a 3D interface and you are constructing a query from database tables that are hanging around you in 3d space. Let's say that the way to pick the columns from the table that you want in your query is to circle your pointer finger in the air circling the columns you want, either individual columns or a group of columns and then flicking them or swiping them towards the query. Within the context of the 3d interface as it pertains to databases, tables and queries, that is a patentable implementation.
Let's take the slide to unlock gesture. There is a hell of a lot of other ways to unlock your phone. Hold the phone button until you're blue in the face, face recognition, fingerprint recognition, voice recognition, etc. Yet Samsung chose to copy Apple because they're lazy.
-
IMO, you cannot patent a gesture. Anything that people do naturally, like slide their finger, wave, tap, etc., these are functions of people's bodies that they do to use a function. NO WAY that Apple can patent what I do with my body when it interacts with a device.
Robert
Sure they can. It it the application of that gesture on that device and the results that it produces that can be patented. The pinch and zoom certainly can.
-
I like what Apple is doing, as far as products go. Apple takes ideas and makes them better...ala iPad. However, they then think that their expansion of ideas should be the end of the road. That's the problem. I think someone should be allowed to make a better iPad. And the Apple can make a better replacement to that replacement. It's kind of the spirit of mankind. To show each other up! And consumers win.
Robert
I have no problem with that, as long as they don't use the same gestures and interactions with the pad. Like using 3D gestures ala Kinect. If all you're doing is using the same basic icons, using the same touch gestures, and on top of that use exactly the same materials, dimensions and overall design, ala Samsung, I have major problems with that.
Palm's webOS was a much better design. On top of that, Palm had beaucoup patents on smartphones and PDA's. If Google had acquired Palm, Apple would have had a lot less problems with them because at least they brought a lot to the table.
-
From 2 miles up (10, 000 feet) an iPhone could look like a microwave...
Sent from my CM9 Toro
From 10,000 feet up, it would look like a really, really, really small microwave.
-
1
-
-
Under the Apple patent philosophy, the original Microsoft PC Tablets should have been patented and there never could have been iPads or Android tablets, because the whole tablet concept would have been taken. We could all just live with whatever Microsoft could have come up with over the years.
http://en.wikipedia....osoft_Tablet_PC
In my opinion, you should not be able to patent a shape, a type of equipment, software, ideas, etc. when it comes to electronics. You should be only to patent code, and a specific manufacturing process. If someone can create a new widget with a similar or better function without using the same exact methods and materials to get there, more power to them.
Apple would love to push out all competition so it can dictate to the masses what we want and then charge us more than top dollar for it. And they are pushing consumers to madness. I believe It's starting to back fire on them.
Robert
While they could have tried, there was prior art to interacting with tablet and a stylus (albeit a smaller size). Apple's Message Pad and Palm's PDA's were there first before Microsoft's tablets. The reason why Microsoft's tablets failed is because they tried to shoehorn a desktop operating system onto a tablet format. I believe that their Windows 8 Desktop will fail for the exact same reasons. Trying to shoehorn a tablet or phone operating system onto the desktop. I like the way Apple is doing it, borrowing functionality from the mobile segment but never replacing the desktop paradigm.
-
How does that explain the millions of Nextel users who practically screamed "I gotta have Direct Connect, I gotta have Direct Connect," then churned to a non Sprint carrier that has no decent PTT option? In actuality, they left out of spite because they fallaciously think that Sprint wrecked Nextel and iDEN.
AJ
Yeah, that always mystified me. Some of them, particularly consumers that did not really need PTT but used it as a poor man's mobile-to-mobile before the unlimited M2M plans, went to carriers that at least advertised better coverage than Sprint. A lot of the business IDEN customers went away because of the collapse of the construction industry. Other IDEN business clients changed their business flows so that they did not use PTT or any kind of person to person contact using web forms or SMS based dispatch. There are a few hardcore for which PTT is a hardcore requirement. Hopefully, Sprint can provide them a substitute. If not, there are still LMR outfits around.
-
From Mike Elgan's post about Apple's "Thermonuclear War" (as Steve Jobs called Apple's planned assault on Google);
Source:http://www.cultofmac...against-google/
With Apple's announcement yesterday you can be pretty sure that Google Maps will be gone from future iterations of iOS.
I don't think it will be gone. It will be relegated to just another Navigation app. Not THE built-in Maps app.
-
Doesn't Sprint have 65,000 sites right now and want to reduce them to 38,000? This is off the top of my head and I'm too lazy to google:).
-
Well Google got into the mobile OS business but I see your point. The main difference I see is that Apple isn't trying to compete on innovation and creativity but they are using the broken patent system to harm their competitors. I also think that Apple's attempt to completely remove Google from the mobile OS space is harmful to the lower income communities which Apple has no interest in serving. Right now I can go to a carrier like Cricket or Virgin and get a servicable Android phone for $70 with an affordable monthly data plan. Apple doesn't produce a handset for that market nor does it indicate that it has any plans to.
Don't you think they created this market of touch screen smartphone market out of thin air and they have improved their offerings every release. They need to safeguard their IP.
If you look at the ultrabooks they are blind copies of the MacBook Air down to the same radius of the rounded corner, aluminum body and chicklet keyboard. They want the unsuspecting customer that see the ultrabooks for the first time to think that it is a Macbook Air!
I am not against ultrathin laptops from other manufacturers. But please don't copy everything!
But I think Apple is OK with doing exactly that.
"Lightsquared gets additional rope"
in General Topics
Posted
Where would they get this 700MHz spectrum that you're talking about? All of the 700MHz spectrum has been spoken for with public safety taking a big chunk.