Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. intomed's Avatar
    Posts
    21 Posts
    Global Posts
    22 Global Posts
       #1  
    Have been eye-balling all the various "latest and greatest" WM phones coming out in the near future. Why is it that a company with one of the worst services/coverages in the U.S. (read as AT&T) gets many, if not all of the coolest looking phones? I mean, the I-phone, while lacking many things that should have been included in their 2nd generation device, is a very asthetically pleasing looking phone with a great user interface. The upcoming HTC Touch Pro HD is another fine example. And let us not forget, the upcoming Experia X1. These are beautiful phones with what appears to be beautiful user interfaces and with WM for functionality to boot. While I do love my Treo 800w, let's face it, it really lacks that coolness factor. Not to mention, what a small screen. How hard is it to make a CDMA phone with a large (3-4 inch) sized screen? Just venting...but would really like to understand what the obstacles are? If it is strictly because the rest of the world operates largely on only GSM, why is it that U.S. companies can not implement this technology the right way here? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by intomed View Post
    Why is it that a company with one of the worst services/coverages in the U.S. (read as AT&T) gets many, if not all of the coolest looking phones?
    Because the world is bigger than the US
  3. intomed's Avatar
    Posts
    21 Posts
    Global Posts
    22 Global Posts
       #3  
    So, am I to assume that you consider the U.S. an insignificant market?
  4. #4  
    No. You asked why a market that is about nine times bigger would get more advanced phones. I think the answer is obvious, because they are much bigger and the economies of scale drive such things.

    On your other point on Palm screen size and its "coolness factor" there is just no getting around this without a slide out keyboard or touchscreen which a lot of palm users, would not like. Palm's competitors are already making full screen cdma devices with touch or slide out anyway. Palm's users are not motivatred by coolness anyway, they are motivated by utility.
  5. intomed's Avatar
    Posts
    21 Posts
    Global Posts
    22 Global Posts
       #5  
    Perhaps you misunderstood...I am not saying that Palm should change all their models, as I understand and can appreciate the utility of its keyboard. Nor am I trying to say that the U.S. market should dictate all the phones of the world. The burning questions that I have really boil down to the following:

    1) Why is it that CDMA does not get some of these "coolness factor" phones? Is it a hardware limitation? Or is it merely the misperception that it would not be profitable to provide such phones to CDMA networks? Seeing how successful the Iphone has been, despite being on such a dismal network (here in the U.S., when compared to Verizon, Alltel, Sprint), I do believe that the demand here would be great and such phones would be successful and profitable.

    2) Seeing as "a market that is about nine times bigger would get more advanced phones" is a GSM network. I refer back to my original question...

    "If it is strictly because the rest of the world operates largely on only GSM, why is it that U.S. companies can not implement this technology the right way here?"

    Those are the questions that are plaguing me at this moment in time. Not whether or not the U.S. market should dictate the cell phone arena. Nor is it about size of markets. Simply put, I live in the U.S. and would like to know why these "more advanced phones" are not available to U.S. markets operating on the CDMA network. And for the record, I do like my Treo 800w. However, I would also like a phone with the looks of an Iphone, Xperia X1, Touch Pro HD, etc with the utility/functionality of the Treo 800w. Now, said phone DOES NOT need to be produced by Palm. It just would be nice to have access to these "more advanced phones".
  6. #6  
    Well, Palm is basically the major offender of creating wildly different designs for GSM and CDMA. Most companies just change the color or otherwise tweak it.

    I think it comes down to where to spend the money for a lot of companies. For example, the Xperia is the first WinMob phone for SonyEricsson...and just developing and selling that phone to their core audience (Europe) is an expensive gamble for them. So slapping in the same chip with different frequencies for the USA won't be a major cost. But having to reengineer it for the CDMA chipset, while maybe not any more expensive than creating the GSM chipset, is one expense too many for the first model. (Since there is no engineering needed to go from Euro bands to USA bands, just a different chip of the same standard.)

    The other thing to consider is that the USA is not 100% CDMA. We're split roughly 50/50, since AT&T and Verizon are back and forth about who has the biggest network, and T-Mobile and Sprint are back and forth with anyone who isn't on AT&T and Verizon. Possibly we're 60/40 towards CDMA at times. In any case, we're taking a market (USA) already dwarfed by the higher demand in Europe for expensive phones, and slicing that down further to arrive at what the realistic CDMA market share is here. And you have to figure that only a portion of that potential market is even going to buy your phones. So the expense of working CDMA into a new phone might outweight the profits...and it might just make more sense to skip the first-gen on CDMA and slap a CDMA version 2 down instead, when the R&D costs associated with the phone's model have begun to stabilize, it's been built up as a brand on the GSM side, and so has more potential at success in the (relatively) smaller market.

    It is just the path of least resistance to experiment in your home market and expand with more established brands in new areas. Of course, if and when Verizon moves to LTE this will change, and we'll see Verizon getting more parity with AT&T and Europe on the "cool phones" front. No comment on where that is going to leave Sprint and WiMax...
  7. intomed's Avatar
    Posts
    21 Posts
    Global Posts
    22 Global Posts
       #7  
    questionfear,

    Great answer. Thanks for your insight. What are your thoughts in regards to why U.S. cell carriers are unable, or is it unwilling, to implement GSM technology as well as the rest of the world? Seems to me that this implementation would be rather less expensive to implement than some proprietary/different technology, such as CDMA.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by intomed View Post
    questionfear,

    Great answer. Thanks for your insight. What are your thoughts in regards to why U.S. cell carriers are unable, or is it unwilling, to implement GSM technology as well as the rest of the world? Seems to me that this implementation would be rather less expensive to implement than some proprietary/different technology, such as CDMA.
    Glad my reply made sense! I am not terribly well versed in the history of phone frequencies, but if I had to guess I think it was just a case of market forces, infrastructure, available frequencies, manufacturer relationships, etc. I am sure someone with more historical knowledge on the wireless development can explain this far better than me.

    Also, bear in mind that with Verizon going to LTE along with the GSM networks in the future, almost all major carriers will be aligning with the same standards, so presumably it will be that much easier to have a phone that can be seamlessly developed for the US markets as well as Europe.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by intomed View Post
    questionfear,

    Great answer. Thanks for your insight. What are your thoughts in regards to why U.S. cell carriers are unable, or is it unwilling, to implement GSM technology as well as the rest of the world? Seems to me that this implementation would be rather less expensive to implement than some proprietary/different technology, such as CDMA.
    Lol. Sprint used to be GSM and was changed to CDMA. I still have Sprint GSM phones

    GSM got its foothold in Europe because the carriers thee, mostly state owned at the time, lobbied successfully in the European countries to make CDMA illegal.

    Here in the US, carriers were essentially free to use whatever system (GSM, CDMA, TDMA) they wanted on the PCS frequencies they had leased.

    I think you misunderstood my answer on the "coolness" question. These are palm forums. Palm established a very effective form factor with its screen and keyboard layout. Unless you want a bigger phone there isn't really a way to keep the keyboard yet make the screen bigger.

    Coolness is also as much a factor of branding, advertising and hype as any feature one user might prefer over another.
  10. intomed's Avatar
    Posts
    21 Posts
    Global Posts
    22 Global Posts
       #10  
    aero,

    Thanks for that tidbit about how GSM became the predominant (read as only) sytem in Europe. Seems ridiculous that the world can't agree on standards for something as prolific as cell phones.

    In regards to the "coolness" question. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that this website and forum was for devices with windows mobile on them and not strictly Palm forums. Secondly, I'm not one to buy into the marketing hipe regarding most things, especially cell phones. My first priority is that a cell phone MUST function exactly as that, a cell phone. What I meant by "coolness" is the graphic interface and large sized screens that we are starting to see in many of the newer ppc/smartphones. I just recently discovered what SPB Mobile Shell can do and now have something that resembles the Touch Diamond theme. I absolutely love it and can only imagine what that would look like on a larger screen size. Only wish I could get RealVGA to work properly on my Treo 800w. Also, web browsing on something with a larger screen is a more fulfilling experience. Now is this coolness factor a good reason to jump ship to a carrier with far worse service than what is currently offered by their CDMA counter-parts? Absolutely not!! At the end of the day, it is after all, a phone and that is the most important function of a cell phone.

    Hope that clears things up.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Lol. Sprint used to be GSM and was changed to CDMA. I still have Sprint GSM phones

    GSM got its foothold in Europe because the carriers thee, mostly state owned at the time, lobbied successfully in the European countries to make CDMA illegal.

    Here in the US, carriers were essentially free to use whatever system (GSM, CDMA, TDMA) they wanted on the PCS frequencies they had leased.

    I think you misunderstood my answer on the "coolness" question. These are palm forums. Palm established a very effective form factor with its screen and keyboard layout. Unless you want a bigger phone there isn't really a way to keep the keyboard yet make the screen bigger.

    Coolness is also as much a factor of branding, advertising and hype as any feature one user might prefer over another.
    Dude, you are mistaken. Sprint was a CDMA network built from the ground up - remember the ads? Also GSM used TDMA technology which IMO is inferior technology. GSM is slowly adopting CDMA technology if you could believe what I've read in the past.

    As far as GSM having cooler phones, IMO it's because EU and Japan are mainly GSM (have I mentioned crappier technology) and they started that way before CDMA came out and It's not cheap to switch to new technology. IOW, there are more manufacturers of GSM phones than CDMA phones so there would relatively be more cool phones. It just makes sense if you were a phone manufacturer, wouldn't YOU manufacture for a bigger market?
    Palm III > Palm V > Palm Vx > (Sprint) Kyo 6035 > Handspring Treo 300
    > Handspring Treo 600 Oct.'03 > Palm Treo 700P May'06 > Treo 755P Aug.'07 > Pre(-) June'09 + TouchPad July'11 LONG LIVE webOS!!!
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by ChemEngr View Post
    Dude, you are mistaken. Sprint was a CDMA network built from the ground up - remember the ads? .
    Dude I am hardly mistaken and do remember the ads. Sprint was 100% GSM and changed to CDMA a few years later . I still have my Sprint GSM phones!

    Why jump in and correct someone without checking your facts first? Sprint was GSM for FIVE years late 94 to late 99. For the first few it was only GSM and then later adopted CDMA (cobbling together several networks) in other parts of the country and shut down its GSM in 2000.

    Quote Originally Posted by intomed View Post
    aero,
    Thanks for that tidbit about how GSM became the predominant (read as only) sytem in Europe. Seems ridiculous that the world can't agree on standards for something as prolific as cell phones.
    Well there are both varied schools of thought on which is best (and at which time which has been best) as well as varied corporate and country interests. But one could even say that in some ways it is better for the consumer to have competing standards, while in other ways it is not.

    I
    Quote Originally Posted by intomed View Post
    1n regards to the "coolness" question. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that this website and forum was for devices with windows mobile on them and not strictly Palm forums. Secondly, I'm not one to buy into the marketing hipe regarding most things, especially cell phones. My first priority is that a cell phone MUST function exactly as that, a cell phone. What I meant by "coolness" is the graphic interface and large sized screens that we are starting to see in many of the newer ppc/smartphones. I just recently discovered what SPB Mobile Shell can do and now have something that resembles the Touch Diamond theme. I absolutely love it and can only imagine what that would look like on a larger screen size. Only wish I could get RealVGA to work properly on my Treo 800w. Also, web browsing on something with a larger screen is a more fulfilling experience. Now is this coolness factor a good reason to jump ship to a carrier with far worse service than what is currently offered by their CDMA counter-parts? Absolutely not!! At the end of the day, it is after all, a phone and that is the most important function of a cell phone.

    Hope that clears things up.
    1) on website: I am actually on the original treocentral.com (obviously palm oriented site) this same thread is on the WMexperts.com site where you are probably accessing it.

    2) On "marketing hype" (aka marketing), my point is that branding adds value. I am not saying you have to be brand conscious. Perhaps you buy generics or whatever is on sale vs Tide or Cheerios. But most people are heavily influenced by brands and this is an increasing phenomena. Brand conveys value, reputation, consistency, a company to back up a product, and in many cases status for the buyer.

    Consider this men are buying less high end watches which for years did not only tell the time but conveyed an image of status. Women are now following this trend. Phones are a personal status symbol replacing the watch. Why do people have an iPhone? to have the newest thing. having the newest thing is a value, it conveys status.

    You may not be motivated by such considerations, but now that these devices are mass marked it is a or the prime consideration.

    On the screen size it is a trade off. Palms screens cant be bigger without getting rid of the keyboard.
  13. #13  
    Verizon has some pretty cool phones. GSM has a way bigger variety than CDMA bu to say they lack style is crazy

Posting Permissions