Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1.    #1  
    I don't understand why Handspring didn't develop a CDMA compatible phone first. Is America still their primary target? Are there more GSM towers here than I know about? I hear rumor that Handspring is developing a CDMA model, but this rings of the PCS version of the VisorPhone. No one cares because it's old news. Once they get around to announcing it people will be looking into newer and cooler stuff. Once you announce something people want it. If they can't use it without a big inconvenience, they'll forget about it. I want one, but I can't USE it and I'm not willing to give up my account with my PCS service provider. Hello? Handspring? Hellooooo.......
    DLPanther
    "When All Else Fails, Improvise!"
  2. #2  
    heloooo DLPanther,

    Next to the US is a even bigger county called 'the rest of the world'
    It seems that HS is focussing on the international standard and not on the US one...

    Also by choosing GSM they are ready for GSPR the next generation of wireless communication...

    Think outside the box.....
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3.    #3  
    I understand that GSM is the international standard and I can't help but think that, like the measurement system used here, America is just using a different standard to make life difficult for engineers. If Handspring is moving to have larger international presence all power to them but if they want Treo to be their flagship product they should offer it in CDMA format at the same time as the GSM model. Otherwise they might as well forget about any US sales.
    DLPanther
    "When All Else Fails, Improvise!"
  4. #4  
    GSM is slowly conquering the US market too.

    AT&T has started their conversion to a GSM network, and Cingular just last week announced that they will add GSM service throughout their existing network coverage area, and then shut the old one down.
  5. #5  
    Here's an answer I found last year from Pen Computing, around the time of the Visorphone's introduction:

    [VisorPhone Product Manager Chris Cadwell] also found it an interesting challenge to work with the carriers--the phone companies--who aren't used to being approached by relatively small companies like Handspring, which at that time was only about forty employees; they were used to dealing with the big handset makers. Convincing them to accept the subscription model they've conceived was perhaps the most interesting. As it stands, you go to Handspring's website to purchase a VisorPhone, and also select and sign up with your service provider, making for a one-stop shopping experience. With GSM there is no overlap, only one provider per area, so there's really no choice of who you'll subscribe with, but only which plan you'll choose.

    SprintPCS has already sold out of its VisorPhone clone, so that should add some momentum to OEMing a CDMA Treo.
  6.    #6  
    That's really interesting that SprintPCS sold out of their VisorPhone Clone. I wonder if it was because of high demand or low production. The wireless market is booming. Whenever I see something that promises to bring an improvement on a product out later, I am always skeptical no matter what company it is. Hopefully, the sell out will discourage them from abandoning any project that is in the works.
    DLPanther
    "When All Else Fails, Improvise!"
  7. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #7  
    Another thing to consider with GSM is the far superior battery life. A CDMA VisorPhone would eat batteries a lot faster than the GSM model, especially in areas where you get dumped into analog a lot. I never got a full day out of my Star Tak when riding out in the middle of nowhere. My Nokia, on the other hand, rarely needs to be charged more than twice a week.

    With all the other problems getting people to adopt the VisorPhone / Treo concept, trying to sell them on a one-to-two-day (on standby) battery life wouldn't be easy.

    Besides, GSM is a better technology. Period. Just because America is behind the rest of the world for once doesn't mean that we have to make up lame reasons why what we have is better. If the phone companies in this country were motivated enough to get off their a@@es for once and set up a real network of wireless (as Europe and Japan did) we'd have GSM coverage everywhere by now, and we'd be buying a lot more Treos.

    Give Microsoft a few more years of unchallenged illegal activity in this country, and pretty soon, the whole tech industry here will be as slow to progress as the Cable and Phone companies. Then we'll really start getting our butts kicked by the rest of the world.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  8. #8  
    I've been extremely happy with GSM in the US. In NYC, I get great reception in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and NJ, in addition to Manhattan. I've driven up to Canada and had reception all the way. I've flown to Dallas and Phoenix and had reception there as well. So far I haven't had any problems due to location (except after 9/11, when the signal suffered here in the city). Elevators and subway rides are another story.
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by mrjoec
    Another thing to consider with GSM is the far superior battery life. A CDMA VisorPhone would eat batteries a lot faster than the GSM model, especially in areas where you get dumped into analog a lot. I never got a full day out of my Star Tak when riding out in the middle of nowhere. My Nokia, on the other hand, rarely needs to be charged more than twice a week.

    Besides, GSM is a better technology. Period. Just because America is behind the rest of the world for once doesn't mean that we have to make up lame reasons why what we have is better. If the phone companies in this country were motivated enough to get off their a@@es for once and set up a real network of wireless (as Europe and Japan did) we'd have GSM coverage everywhere by now, and we'd be buying a lot more Treos.
    First of all, technically speaking, CDMA is by far the superior technology when compared to GSM. I won't go into details but do your homework/research on the two technologies and it will become very clear very quickly.

    Second, the statement that a CDMA visorphone will "eat batteries" faster than a GSM visorphone when "out in the middle of nowhere" is completely false. The CDMA VP is single-band only, just like the GSM VP so there is no way analog use can be figured into the equation! When you're out in the middle of nowhere, neither will have a signal so I fail to see how one is going to go through its battery faster.

    As far as using the battery life of your Star-tac and Nokia phones go when on the different networks and using that to compare GSM to CDMA, that's like comparing apples to oranges. Nokia phones are known for their great battery life while the Motorola Star-tacs are known to have only average to mediocre battery life. This is true no matter what kind of network you are on. When you add to that that you are using them on two different networks and apparently you use one and/or both of them on an analog network at some point in time, the comparison becomes virtually impossible. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but the only thing that is definitive here is that using your phone on an analog network will drain your battery faster than using it on a digital network. This in no way can be used to compare CDMA to GSM (since both are digital), which you are trying to do. (Besides, many CDMA phones can access the analog network where almost all GSM phones can't . Personally, if I'm in an area where there is analog only, I'd rather have a CDMA phone with a half-charged battery and be able to make a call rather than a GSM phone with a full-battery and not be able to make a call.) But again, that really doesn't matter since both versions of the VP are single-band only so neither will work on an analog network. If anything, when Sprint launches its 3G network in mid-2002, the CDMA VP will be compatible with it and therefore be able to utilize one of the network's advantages of increased battery life. The GSM VP will have no such option.

    Marty
  10. #10  
    mmendo1, I'd actually be interested to know why CDMA is superior to GSM. Is there a way you could explain you could explain here briefly to a non-techie? Thanks. Why did most of the world adopt GSM?
  11. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #11  
    I think my point was that if the United States had done the right thing and set up a real GSM network (or even a real CDMA network for that matter) here a long time ago, there would be no need for analog at all. Such as it is, there are still a lot of places (out in the middle of nowhere) where analog is your only choice. That's just plain unacceptable.

    Saying that CDMA is better because it allows you to go analog is like saying a PC is better because it lets you run DOS. I fail to see how allowing the use of a backwards, inferior technology makes something better. You may be better off personally, if you have a CDMA phone and there's no digital network to connect to. But that doesn't make the technology superior. Put the digital network in place and you won't have to resort to using analog.

    I, too, would like to hear your arguments for CDMA. I'm willing to be convinced. Right now, these are what I see to be major advantages for GSM (from my own experience):

    1. Sound Quality. I've had CDMA and GSM phones in the same area, and the GSM phones just sound better to me. And yes, I've had Nokias of both type, and even then, the 8290 sounds better than the 8260. GSM may not be everywhere in this country, but where it is established, it has good sound.

    2. Reception / disconnects. Maybe this was a Verizon issue, but whenever I was driving anywhere, I was almost guaranteed to drop a call more than twice if the call lasted more than ten minutes. I wouldn't say this never happens with GSM, but it definitely happens less. Again, I'm willing to think that this has more to do with the provider than the technology, but I'm not sure.

    3. The SIM card. Finally, I don't need to reprogram my whole address list every time I change phones. That alone is worth the price of admission. Not to mention the fact that it allows me to have multiple phones one one account without paying extra. So when I don't feel like lugging my Visorphone around, I just pop the card into my Nokia 8290 and I'm good to go.

    4. World-Wide acceptance. This isn't really an argument for the technology, because if the whole world had gone CDMA, it would have been true of CDMA. But it is nice to know that everytime I visit Europe or Asia, my phone will still work in most places. This is a tremendous convenience for business travelers, thus the generally well-built GSM networks in many US metropolitan areas.

    Overall, I'm impressed with the way Europe and a lot of the rest of the world got it together and provided a comparable service that can be shared by everyone. Meanwhile, here in the States, lack of competition between mammoth companies controlling portions of the country led to the half-a@@ed establishment of several proprietary networks that don't meet most of our needs, but gouge our wallets on a monthly basis.

    Can you imagine what would happen if a computer company tried to make people sign long-term service agreements, and if they retained the right to shut your computer off if you stopped paying? Oh, wait a second, Microsoft, did try that. Nevermind.

    I'd love to see what would happen if every kind of cellular service were available in every State. Maybe these wireless companies would then be forced to give us all a product worth buying, rather than one we have to reluctantly live with.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by mrjoec


    Saying that CDMA is better because it allows you to go analog is like saying a PC is better because it lets you run DOS. I fail to see how allowing the use of a backwards, inferior technology makes something better. You may be better off personally, if you have a CDMA phone and there's no digital network to connect to. But that doesn't make the technology superior. Put the digital network in place and you won't have to resort to using analog.

    I, too, would like to hear your arguments for CDMA. I'm willing to be convinced. Right now, these are what I see to be major advantages for GSM (from my own experience):

    I didn't say CDMA was superior to GSM because it allows you to access analog networks, more so that it was an added benefit for a phone that uses CDMA (at least that's how I meant it to be interpretted).

    Your PC/DOS comparison is not very accurate because DOS does not really provide any added functionality to the average PC user where the ability to access an analog network can definitely provide a very important added feature for the average cell phone user in the US. But again, this is not a reason I am stating as to why CDMA is superior to GSM, just an added benefit.

    So why is CDMA superior to GSM? Again, I'm not going to do the research for you. I've done it myself already and I'm not about to write it all out when it is quite easy to find it out by one's self. But after doing so, it is quite clear which is the superior technology. While I don't totally understand all the technical details myself, it really isn't necessary to. Suffice it to say CDMA beats GSM in almost every way (with the exception of global coverage which, as you said, really isn't a measure of the technology) . To get you started on your own research, here is a thread at PalmInfoCenter that merely touches the tip of the iceberg as to why CDMA is the technologically superior "standard".

    http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_S...ODE=FLAT#26012

    Do some more research and it will become even clearer.


    Marty
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by mmendo1
    Suffice it to say CDMA beats GSM in almost every way (with the exception of global coverage which, as you said, really isn't a measure of the technology) .
    Anyone for Betamax?

    Nigel.
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by mmendo1
    I'm not going to do the research for you. I've done it myself already and I'm not about to write it all out when it is quite easy to find it out by one's self. But after doing so, it is quite clear which is the superior technology. While I don't totally understand all the technical details myself, it really isn't necessary to. Suffice it to say CDMA beats GSM in almost every way (with the exception of global coverage which, as you said, really isn't a measure of the technology) . To get you started on your own research, here is a thread at PalmInfoCenter that merely touches the tip of the iceberg as to why CDMA is the technologically superior "standard".
    Do some more research and it will become even clearer.
    hmmm... this is completely convincing. The next time I'm in a debate I'm going to demand that my opponent "do more research" without backing up my claims.

    I like GSM better. Sound quality is better, upgrade path to 2.5G & 3G is better. Worldwide acceptance IS a technical merit, and GSM has got it. And perhaps the biggest reason: SMS. It's underappreciated here because it isn't used--because we have stupid competiting wireless networks. Out in the world it's incredibly popular, and for good reason. It's CHEAP communication.
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    And perhaps the biggest reason: SMS. It's underappreciated here because it isn't used--because we have stupid competiting wireless networks.
    Well, I didn't like to be too rude about american networks, but yes...

    I can't find a reference off the top of my head for the most up to date figures, but a story on the Register gives 900 million text messages sent in the UK in January of this year.

    That's now reached over a billion a month, just in one country, and before people have started to use it for marketing.

    I can exchange SMSs with most people I know who have GSM. Except americans, whose networks are very picky when it comes to receiving from abroad, it seems

    Nigel.
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by nwhitfield
    I can't find a reference off the top of my head for the most up to date figures, but a story on the Register gives 900 million text messages sent in the UK in January of this year.

    That's now reached over a billion a month, just in one country, and before people have started to use it for marketing.
    And it's everywhere. Hell, in Asia they're started frickin REVOLUTIONS with SMS--groups mailings via cells of people--important, up to the second instructions sent out to hundreds of people with no centralized listing...
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn

    hmmm... this is completely convincing. The next time I'm in a debate I'm going to demand that my opponent "do more research" without backing up my claims.

    I like GSM better. Sound quality is better, upgrade path to 2.5G & 3G is better. Worldwide acceptance IS a technical merit, and GSM has got it. And perhaps the biggest reason: SMS. It's underappreciated here because it isn't used--because we have stupid competiting wireless networks. Out in the world it's incredibly popular, and for good reason. It's CHEAP communication.
    I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply stating the facts, the main one being that CDMA is technologically superior to GSM. If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine. If you are interested in knowing why that fact is so, do the research. I could care less if you went on thinking that GSM was better than CDMA, you'd be the one not looking so bright when you debated the matter with someone who could articualte all the technical details.

    And worldwide acceptance is not a technical merit. Hey, more people use this technology so it must be better...NO!!!!! CDMA was only in its infancy when the rest of the world was building up its GSM network, a partial explanation as to why GSM has more global coverage.

    I think GSM is a great technology, I have nothing against it (was one of the first to use GSM in the US). CDMA is just technologically superior. That's all I'm pointing out. Don't think so? Fine. You're wrong, but that's just fine.
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by mmendo1
    I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply stating the facts,

    And worldwide acceptance is not a technical merit. Hey, more people use this technology so it must be better...NO!!!!! CDMA was only in its infancy when the rest of the world was building up its GSM network, a partial explanation as to why GSM has more global coverage.
    Why isn't it a technical merit? I think your definition of "technical" is too narrow. How about this: GSM is compatible with more cell towers than CDMA. GSM can do SMS.
    I think GSM is a great technology, I have nothing against it

    CDMA is just technologically superior. That's all I'm pointing out.
    We have a saying: YMMV. Your Mileage May Vary. Both techs have their up and down sides. If you want to try and hash out which one seems best overall, we can do that--but in the end it may come down to personal preference & needs.

    Look- it is a safe assumption that the people here are fairly well read about this kind of stuff. If you're really serious about converting the masses to CDMA, the way to do it isn't to yell "because it's better!" really really loudly. Actually starting listing out the various pros (and cons!) of it. If you've got the time to post the stuff you have thus far, and you seem to be so convinced that CDMA is better--lay out the argument.
    Don't think so? Fine.
    Fine.
    You're wrong, but that's just fine.
    Fine.
  19. #19  
    I think I now have a pretty good idea of where you are coming from and what you are trying to say and, in essence, we are arguing two different issues. What I'm simply pointing out is that technology wise, CDMA is superior to GSM. However, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone should start using CDMA wherever it is available. I definitely understand that for many, many people, GSM is the way to go and I'm not trying to get any of them to convert over to CDMA. Depending on where you are, GSM may very well be the better choice even if a CDMA network is present and hence YM WILL V (I am familiar with the phrase :) What will not vary is the simple fact that from a technological standpoint, CDMA is the superior technology. What that means is that if there were no cell phone netowrks around and you have to choose CDMA or GSM as your standard and the only thing you were concerned with was building the most technologically advanced network possible at that time in order to provide the most possible features/benefits, the correct choice would be CDMA. Ok?

    Marty
  20. #20  
    Originally posted by mmendo1
    What that means is that if there were no cell phone netowrks around and you have to choose CDMA or GSM as your standard and the only thing you were concerned with was building the most technologically advanced network possible at that time in order to provide the most possible features/benefits, the correct choice would be CDMA. Ok?
    I don't know... you still haven't actually put forth any positive arguments yet...

    but if we're building from the "ground up," then give me GPRS!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions