maximus1987/lou99

I get your point. However, to say that the latest versions of Android have a problem because they will not run on as little as 256MB is kind of a pointless discussion, because the latest versions of iOS and Windows Phone will not either. It is comparing 2013 operating systems to 2010 hardware. This is really a third world problem, as they are the ones who want cheap phones with outdated hardware with the latest operating systems. As digiblur points out above, the cost difference between 256MB of RAM and 512MB of RAM is negligible. Even the cost difference to go to 1 GB nowadays is not so large either. This is not unprecedented that newer software and OS'es require more RAM. This has been true in the PC World too. And like I have mentioned, WP and iOS devices also require more RAM as generations evolve. Robert I used to think that all cheap smartphones were crap until I saw the $130 (off contract) Lumia 521. I was impressed.

Do the latest versions of iOS and Windows Phone work well on 256MB of RAM? 256MB of RAM is woefully inadequate for 2013. If you're using 2010 hardware, you are stuck with a 2010 operating system. Robert I didn't post that to specially reference the 256MB RAM but to have an authoritative quote pointing out Android's sluggishness (due to Java-like choice for architecture).

I know, that's not the new (Blue) GSM model I'm talking about. It's only available through MetroPCS retail stores in Boston, Hartford, Vegas and Dallas for now. It's soon to be available nationwide. I just don't see why they would sell GS3 for $100 less on Metro AND have $10/month cheaper rates. The other way it would make sense: phone is cheaper but $10/month x 24 months = net gain of $140. Whatever.

No. MetroPCS GSM/WCDMA/LTE GS3 is also $399. I posted the model number and site listing its specs. It's CDMA.

Thought of something else that makes it more likely for TMO to cover their entire native footprint with LTE: "T-Mobile and MetroPCS hope to achieve $6 billion to $7 billion in post-deal "synergies."" http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-confirms-job-cuts-hq-ahead-metropcs-merger/2013-04-01 Even if they only achieve half that, it should be enough to upgrade the rest of their network to LTE. Right? I think what they told the analysts about only upgrading a portion to LTE was the sane reason Hesse said he'd eventually raise prices: so the stock wouldn't be downgraded for "heavy capex".

They're already selling T-Mo GSM version in Hartford, Vegas, Dallas officially, my local store already has it in stock, but not allowed to sell until the 14th.So it's coming. So is the $400 GS3 the CDMA/LTE version? Is the Metro GSM GS3 the same price as the TMO GS3?

It makes plenty of sense. VZW isn't even talking about re-farming cellular for LTE at this point. They're starting to deploy LTE on AWS. They've mentioned starting to re-farm PCS in 2015. Any re-farm of cellular for LTE likely start until 2017 or later and you think it makes business sense for VZW to go back and update a phone that was released in 2012 ? Umm no, they want for you to buy a new device and be locked into another contract. How many people would still be using an iPhone 5 in 4+ years anyway?? Also, iphone 5 supports PCS LTE which iphone also supports. Okay, now that makes no sense. You make it sound as if by NOT updating the iphone 5 to allow Band 5 LTE, Verizon is somehow using the stick to force those people to get into a new two year contract. I don't see it. "Your phone is capable of Band 5 LTE but we're not gonna enable it unless you sign a two year contract" - you think that's gonna work on the non-s4gru reader? Verizon is hurting no one but itself by not doing everything it can to lessen the load on Band 13. So yes, it would make business sense to enable as many bands as it supports. And you didn't mention the PCS band: Band 25. It's also supported on VZW iphone 5. Are they not going to enable that one either? I agree with the above post on how many people will have iphone 5 in 2017. In Verizon's recent quarterly results, an astounding number of iphone 4 and iPhone 4S were sold and they don't even have LTE! Imagine what the mix is gonna be when the LTE iphone 5 will be "free" in 2014. There's gonna be a bunch of them in 2015 and possible 2017. Why wouldn't Verizon enable PCS and Band 5 LTE?

Yes! This is a bigger deal than it seems. MetroPCS CDMA phones roam near-flawlessly across two major networks + others, nationwide. T-Mobile GSM phones roam on one major network + others, and only in very specific designated areas. If T-Mobile would just stop blocking AT&T roaming, then their roaming would be (roughly) equally useful to MetroPCS's and it wouldn't be an issue. But since they block a large portion of roaming right now, their roaming coverage can't be depended on. Just how much do you think the ghetto-PCS customers roam?Think of the places where there's no Tmobile roaming. It's so far from the metro areas where their target market is located that its irrelevant. Shouldn't TMO first concern itself with their lack of even 3G in rurals?

This is Tmobile's real footprint That map includes roaming partners. Uhh no it doesn't. It shows TMO native plus metro pcs. See how Michigan is only half covered? If you look at the post paid map, it shows roaming for other half of Michigan which is not shown here. This map most definitely only shows TMO native

I highly doubt that the iPhone 5 and any other current generation handset will ever get a carrier update to support Band 5 LTE from VZW. Why? That makes no sense. Also, iphone 5 supports PCS LTE which iphone also supports.

Haha. Nope. It's the CDMA version. SCHR530RWBM http://www.wirefly.com/product/metropcs/samsung/galaxy-s-iii

I just verified those prices and wow. I'm surprised. What's Tmobile's strategy?

I agree. It's so funny that people were so righteously indignant when ATT still had the unlimited data and they charged extra for tethering. I couldn't do that with a straight face.

No it won't. The data is only available on Tmobile's network so you're still at a disadvantage compared to AIO when it comes to coverage. http://maps.eng.t-mobile.com/maps/index.html?map=metro That's Tmobile's coverage map colored slightly differently to hide that it's Tmobile's map. Since Metro is part of TMO, I wonder why they'd be undercutting themselves by $10/month. Well the answer is the TMO's Metro brand has no 0% financing so you're effectively paying a $10/month financing fee if you have Tmobile and not MetroPCS. For the family plan, 3 people on Metro is $105 while on TMO-proper it's $90 and you get the same 500MB/line and you get the 0% financing. I wonder if they meant for Metro to be more expensive than TMO. If Metro's prices were lower than TMO in every category, like a family plan for 3, then yes it'd be a better deal.

The only reason why tethering is extra today is because you get unlimited non-tether data. Unlimited tethering would destroy even the NV network.

I never said that Sprint would not be bidding at all, just that it would bid for 5x5 and nothing more. I said "mostly". That's not even up for discussion: Sprint will deploy 2.5 GHz everywhere. They have no other differentiator besides large allowance of data and they're not gonna have the spectrum to maintain the high data allowance without 2.5GHz. When Son was interviewed after announcing first offer for Sprint, he was evasive about what exactly he was gonna do with Sprint. One can only assume that he's gonna use the 2.5GHz advantage to his fullest advantage. That's his only card to play.

I disagree. Having "unlimited" doesn't properly convey the value that Sprint is providing. Instead, Sprint should, and probably will, have caps like 10 GB or 20 GB. Then, someone with 4 GB on Verizon paying $110 will look at someone on Sprint with 20GB also paying $110, and they'll switch.

Ok.

If you learn ObC, you can easily transition to any language. The "hard" part is object oriented progamming. Everything else is minor.

I think I've "figured out" whether Tmobile will expand LTE to more than their current 225 mil HSPA+: yes, it will. Reason: competition. a) Sprint - by mid 2013, they'll have 250 million or 277 million http://s4gru.com/index.php?/files/download/13-sprint-network-vision-handout/ pg 16/21 So through their Boost and Virgin brands, they'll have an advertising advantage against Tmobile. Virgin: $55 - unlimited talk, text, 2.5 GB full speed data Tmobile: $50/60 - unlimited talk, text, 500MB/2.5GB full speed data Whether it's gonna be 277 or 250 million final LTE coverage is gonna be big in terms of the "BOOM!" advertising factor but even if it's "only" 25 million it'll be hard for TMO to compete. But if Tmobile won't expand because of Sprint's 250 or 277 mil advantage then they will expand their LTE because of the big dog AIO wireless aka ATT - AIO is owned and operated by ATT and will have geographic access to ALL of ATT's network. [I'm pretty sure this is relevant to this discussion cause we're talking about why or why not Tmobile will expand their LTE footprint] AIO - $55 2GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text) Your LTE speeds are limited to 8mbps even during the "full speed" portion TMO - $50/60 500MB/2.5GB full speed (and unlimited talk, text) BUT ATT's gonna have 270 million with LTE end of 2013 and 300 million end of 2014 Now, TMO can't do anything about that 300 million number until 600 MHz is available for activation but at the very least . . . Look at its native map for data (which is the same as its prepaid data coverage) http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-coverage TMO covers 225 mil with HSPA+ TODAY in the green areas - once you zoom in enough - then imagine how many people TMO covers today with its entire footprint i.e. when you include the 2G! If it simply upgrades ALL current towers to LTE, it'll have a fighting chance against AIO but if it doesn't . . . . then I can only assume that their strategy is to force the FCC/DOJ to let ATT or Sprint purchase them.

Here's a guy who knows more than all of us But the latest versions of Android don't run well on such cheap devices, he claims. "Android 4 doesn't run on 256MB of RAM... it really wants a gig." And Eich believes that Google doesn't have a solution for that, other than telling developers to fall back to the lesser Android 2.3, aka Gingerbread. "Gingerbread is still being mass produced this year and will be mass produced next year," he claims, because Google doesn't have anything better to offer. Eich also thinks that Google's app momentum could be its Achilles' heel: "Android can't really slim down... they'd break compatibility." http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/1/4484052/mozilla-cto-says-android-is-too-bloated-for-mass-market-phones I'm not saying I like the idea of HTML-only apps. That's simply a quote from someone whose opinion is respected more than mine.

You still haven't detailed why C++ is so "eww". You're totally missing the point of this thread. Google did Project Butter as a result of Android's architectural limitation. Yes, animations are now better but if they used native code, they wouldn't have had the problem in the first place. And Android could run on cheaper hardware well.

Phone processors are tiny embedded devices. What does a virtual machine give you that C++ and smart pointers can't?

This post has nothing to do with this thread.

What's wrong with C++?