Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1.    #1  
    I noticed the box my Treo 800w came in has a "WiFi Certified" sticker. And it has that because certain players who give that certification have a stake in it and want devices claiming to handle WiFi to conform to a uniform standard.

    I know with GPS, there are not the same set of stakeholders willing to makeup some standard, but it sure would prevent issues like we've experienced. There could be "aGPS certified" for assisted GPS devices and "GPS certified" for true stand alone certification. The Treo 800w would have received the "aGPS certified" sticker and we all would have known.

    Seems there is already an aGPS device certification effort under way. All we need is one for true stand alone GPS and all will be set.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #2  
    I vote yes
  3. tli415's Avatar
    Posts
    131 Posts
    Global Posts
    132 Global Posts
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    I vote yes
    Is it November already?
  4. #4  
    Certifications are generally, as a rule, a waste of money.

    They certainly have good *INTENT*, but in practice virtually all certification boards end up not only slowing innovation, but costing consumers money.


    To give a simple (and made up ) example, lets say that to be WiFi certified, the WiFi has to operate completely separately from the radio. Furthermore, lets say that I develop a new WiFi solution that uses both WiFi and the radio at the same time, effectively doubling (or more) your bandwidth. The catch is that the radio has to be on for it to work, even if you have no signal (it works just fine without a signal, but the radio has to be on).

    Now if I'm intending to market this clearly to my customers (lets not go dragging other stuff in here), then there should be nothing wrong with this. In fact, many people would actually desire such an option.

    But in our "certified" world, I fail certification meaning at least I've lost consumer trust (they won't buy if everyone else is certified except me), and at most I can't even sell it (as is true with some certification markets).

    Either way a new product is blocked from the market, and it costs me extra money to redesign, which means it costs YOU extra money.



    I'm firmly of the opinion of deregulating markets. Consumers can, as a general rule, take care of themselves. If enough people have a problem with a product they will vote with their feet, and the company will either change or go out of business. It's only in regulated markets that we often find that consumers *CAN'T* vote with their feet, look at the local telephone companies, cable companies, and even the music (RIAA) and movie (MPAA) markets.


    Plus with enough money any company can buy a certification. If nothing else they'll pay the certification company to tweak the rules so they pass. For example in the GPS situation, Palm (assuming it HAD any money to spend) could simply spend enough money until the certification board changed the requirements to "a GPS device which operates as standalone at any point." A change like that would technically fit the 800w, even if it's not really standalone.

    You see this happen all the time, just look at what happened with the recent bail-out bill.
  5.    #5  
    Ebag333, you've tied what would be an optional certification into a "regulation". I've never asserted that it be mandatory that devices get the hypothetical GPS related certifications. Once I start talking about government oversight and federal boards, to block release of devices, then your deregulation speech will be fitting.

    I'm talking about optional yet industry respected certification. For example, someone may be A+ certified. That does not mean someone not A+ certified is explicitly banned from doing the same type of IT work.

    In time, any standard can be corrupted. And we've seen how easily Palm in my opinion has corrupted the true meaning of a stand alone GPS device. I feel a 3rd party certification group would probably work well for a while. For now, the Treo 800w would have "aGPS" certification and Palm could work it up to a "stand alone" certification later, if they can make the Treo 800w work as a real stand alone GPS device should.

    But such a certification, for a time, would help consumers easily see whether or not a device has the GPS functionality they desire.
  6.    #6  
    And Ebag333, you do know, when an industry is not able to define clear definitions for consumers on its own, that is typically when government tries to step in.

    We agree in not wanting government's big grubby hands in the world of smart phones any more than they already are.
  7. #7  
    it sounds good, but in reality i'm not sure what it gets us

    The Bluetooth SIG group (Palm is a member) is there to set standards but who here thinks BT behaves the same on every device and has universal compatabilty? HTC still released the Mogul with terrible BT; Palm with the 700p/700wx.

    The problem here is companies like Qualcomm are driving the aGPS bus but they won't share their technology or standards with anyone since it's all proprietary tech.

    Ebag does make some good points too. In motorcycle helmet saftey, the optional but symbolic Snell Certification has been called into serious question by leading head injury experts--namely that they are testing for unlikely crash scenerios and may be calling for standards that are not applicable, making Snell helmets potentially more dangerous than required DOT (govt) standards.

    I guess if its done right it'd be fine, but I have little faith in such industry cooperation.

    I'm also not sure how this would lessen "bugs" with aGPS/GPS (800w; lag on HTC devices) which seems to the majority of problems today, not standards. Same problem w/ Bluetooth.

    After all, it's ONLY Qualcomm who does CDMA aGPS. They ARE the standard and only option. Why would they submit themselves to this?
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    In motorcycle helmet saftey, the optional but symbolic Snell Certification has been called into serious question by leading head injury experts--namely that they are testing for unlikely crash scenerios and may be calling for standards that are not applicable, making Snell helmets potentially more dangerous than required DOT (govt) standards.
    And I bet that you can find plenty of people who will only use a snell certified helmet, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    After all, it's ONLY Qualcomm who does CDMA aGPS. They ARE the standard and only option. Why would they submit themselves to this?
    Well...I suppose that's certainly a point.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    After all, it's ONLY Qualcomm who does CDMA aGPS. They ARE the standard and only option. Why would they submit themselves to this?
    Focusing on component makers is wrong. First it It is general motors that the consumer has recourse to, they can't pass of consumer recourse to component makers. Secondly it is companies like Palm that submit devices for FCC approval, not the individual component makers. Thirdly it is companies like Palm that advertise and are able to test their devices. AS far as the lack of standalone on the 800w, the problem is not that it is merely not working, but that it was advertised and featured by Palm (not by Qualcomm).

    So Qualcomm doesn't have to submit to anything, the device maker, who is advertising the features would.
  10.    #10  
    Aero, you've saved me many keystrokes .
  11. #11  
    I can't read Aero's response (he's on my ignore list).

    Either way, to implement standards after the fact the tech has been invented and marketed is backwards.

    There is currently no market pressure to force a standard.

    Also, remember, on CDMA we are not the customer, the carriers are, as they buy the devices to re-sell. Until that model changes, we won't have much voice as we are locked out.

    Palm can't modify qualcomm's tech. Monopolies are a b*tch.

    Designing to an arbitrary standard is anti-free market and can stagnate tech development.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    And I bet that you can find plenty of people who will only use a snell certified helmet, right?
    Absolutely. And companies fight to get that sticker and mark-up the helmet cost to the customer (~$100 more; cost of cert is about $1 since Snell is non-profit). Meanwhile, they ignore new research since Snell has not embraced it.

    Build to the standard, not the reality.
    Last edited by Malatesta; 10/28/2008 at 02:25 PM.
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Malatesta View Post
    I can't read Aero's response (he's on my ignore list).
    Well you can always turn it off for a moment if you wish . It would be good if you did regarding that particular comment.


    Either way, to implement standards after the fact the tech has been invented and marketed is backwards.
    The proposal was in the context of future device releases and just speculation of how it might have been if such existed when the 800w was released.

    There is currently no market pressure to force a standard.
    Nope. But perhaps enough issues like we've had and that might change. If the device makers can use terms everyone respects, there won't be much of a need or desire for what I've proposed.

    Also, remember, on CDMA we are not the customer, the carriers are, as they buy the devices to re-sell. Until that model changes, we won't have much voice as we are locked out.

    Palm can't modify qualcomm's tech. Monopolies are a b*tch.
    Please read Aero's comment.

    Designing to an arbitrary standard is anti-free market and can stagnate tech development.
    I think simply affirming something is stand alone GPS or not via a voluntary certification standard is very much free market (because its voluntary and consumers would decide how much value the certification brings, not government). I would actually enhance development, in the case of the 800w, it might even have resulted in a released device that actually has stand alone GPS. Or it would have been branded aGPS and that would be the end of it.

    The only issue raised with WiFi certification was speculative. I think the WiFi certification has worked out pretty well thus far. If someone makes something better than is accepted by WiFi certification, nobody will care that it's not certified once enough people use it. Again, it's all speculation and thus far in reality the WiFi certification has offered some level of consumer confidence in purchased devices.
  13. #13  
    Is this thread for real? I thought I was redundant.
    ATT History- From 1997-2001-> Nokia 6362->Motorola StarTac->Nokia 8260.

    Nextel History From 2001-2004-> Motorola i1000-> Motorola i90c-> Motorola i95cl-> Motorola i730->Motorola i850.

    Sprint History From 2005 - Currently->Sanyo 5500-> Sanyo 5600-> Sanyo-> 7400->Sanyo 8300->Sanyo->7500-> Sanyo 9000->Sanyo 8400->Sanyo M1->PPC-6700->Treo 700wx->PPC-6800(Mogul)-> Motorola Q9C-> Treo 800w-> Curve->Treo 800w->Touch Pro->Treo Pro> Curve "M"->HTC Hero.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Well you can always turn it off for a moment if you wish . It would be good if you did regarding that particular comment.
    I did read Aero's comment and it's something that's quite incorrect.

    His example of GM doesn't hold out, for example. In the case of cars, there are a wide variety of cars and I can pick and choose which ones that I like, as Mal said I am the consumer.

    With phones I am not the consumer. Sprint and Verizon are.

    In *MANY* areas you have a choice of Sprint or Verizon. Where Sprint works well, Verizon doesn't, and vice versa. So often you're locked into a single carrier from the get go.

    Even if you have a choice of the two, you're still limited on phones. I can't grab any phone I want (well, I probably could grab an CDMA phone, but your average user won't know how to swap the ESN, and I still am stuck to CDMA phones) and use it. As a consumer, my choice is of the carrier.

    Furthermore, carriers typically do not carry competing phones. To stick with car's as an example, a Camry and Corrolla are fairly similar in design, etc. Or to get even more specific take the Camry and Camry hybrid. Toyota is (in a sense) competing with itself. A cell phone carrier would probably advise Toyota to cut half (or more) of their line and offer one car, one truck, one SUV, and one minivan. Toyota can't do this however, because if they did their consumers (me) would move to other companies. (Mitsubishi did exactly this as as a last ditch effort to cut costs to a minimum, that company is in serious trouble and will probably get bought out.)


    All that being said the components still aren't the same because they don't come from a single source, and GM owns many of the manufacturing companies that produce their components (same with most car companies). In essence they are one company.

    And if a part fails (regardless of the market) it's common practice for the parent company or device/car manufacturer to push that additional cost back upstream. It's not always as simple as a "I had to recall X part which cost 10 million, now pay me." Often it's a "I had to recall X part which cost me 10 million, so therefore on our next sale we will be getting a markdown of cost plus 10%." (And in reality about a thousand times more complex than that.)

    The assembler may absorb the cost short term, but long term the cost always goes back to the component manufacturer. (And there have been plenty of cases where the assembler turns around and sues the component manufacturer, and part of the settlement/verdict is that the component manufacturer covers certain costs.)


    Phew, all that for a single sentence.


    Second and third sentences are essentially the same, and addressed above.


    Forth, Qualcomm does advertise that the chipset used is capable of standalone GPS.


    Finally, *NONE* of what Aero's post has anything to do with what Mal said. What difference does it make if every device manufacturer subscribes to a certain standard if they all get their components from the same place?

    This has been tried several times, one of the most noticeable cases has been in the PC market. Dell, Gateway, HP, etc have more than once tried to force Microsoft to do something specific with Windows. Microsoft ignores them and often does what they want. There's no incentive for Microsoft to bow to their wishes, they're the only game in town. The same holds true for Qualcomm.



    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    The proposal was in the context of future device releases and just speculation of how it might have been if such existed when the 800w was released.
    It wouldn't have made a lick of difference. First off, no one caught that the 800w was not stand alone right away (even in the "professional" reviews). For quite a while there was a lot of back and forth about it. So whats to say that your hypothetical approvals/certification board would have even caught it? (The bug obviously slipped past Palm's QA, the beta testers, and even many of the reviewers.)

    And lets say that they did catch it, what then? Palm is going to go back and redesign the device? Forget that, they might as well scrap the whole thing and start over than go with a different chipset. Fix the bug? All well and good, but then you're looking at another delay that could be 6 months, which costs the company *HUGE* amounts of money.

    Either way Palm's losing hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more). Where do you think that money is going to come from? That's right....YOU. Palm has to recoup their costs somewhere, and Qualcomm is going to tell them "Sorry, you're SOL" because Palm can't go to another chipset manufacturer. So they're going to turn the costs over to you.

    Or Palm's third choice is to release it as is. They have the opportunity to correct a mistake and not advertise standalone GPS, but instead they're offering a "non certified" device, which means that tons of people who would have bought the 800w won't. (Just like tons of people won't buy the motorcycle helmets Mal mentioned above, because of the lack of a cert, despite the fact that they're a superior product.)

    Again a huge loss to Palm.


    So in this situation the best scenario is that the exact same thing happens, just it's "certified", and the worst is Palm goes out of business. I suppose you could argue that the best thing would be Palm fixes the bug, but I for one wouldn't want yet another delay in releasing the 800w (we'd all be like those poor Verizon users).




    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    I think simply affirming something is stand alone GPS or not via a voluntary certification standard is very much free market (because its voluntary and consumers would decide how much value the certification brings, not government). I would actually enhance development, in the case of the 800w, it might even have resulted in a released device that actually has stand alone GPS. Or it would have been branded aGPS and that would be the end of it.

    The only issue raised with WiFi certification was speculative. I think the WiFi certification has worked out pretty well thus far. If someone makes something better than is accepted by WiFi certification, nobody will care that it's not certified once enough people use it. Again, it's all speculation and thus far in reality the WiFi certification has offered some level of consumer confidence in purchased devices.
    In the vast majority of cases voluntary certification means nothing, or everything.


    The MPAA rating is a "voluntary" certification, but show me a major theater that will carry a non-rated movie. Mal's motorcycle helmet example is a voluntary cert, but that cert makes a HUGE impact on the market.

    Heck, technically your taxes are a voluntary donation (if you read the fine print). Want to argue with the IRS on that one?

    I never even noticed the WiFi cert, and if it had it would have meant nothing to me. I expect that this is true of the vast majority of people.
  15.    #15  
    Ebag333 - Perhaps one of our attorney or law student readers can help you with your lack of understanding on this. Aero is very correct. There's literally years of case law, that proves this buck can't be passed to Qualcomm regarding the advertising of the device. Palm is the device manufacturer and they take the heat if they say the Treo 800w can do something it really can't do. And it's Palm who obtained the existing certifications on the product.

    I feel a GPS certification group would have more likely taken notice of an issue in something such as the Treo 800w, if Palm was making an effort for stand alone and assisted GPS certification in a device that only does assisted GPS.

    Just because you missed the WiFi cert means nothing. In fact I'll poll and we'll see what the majority says, to see if they feel as you say they feel on the issue.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    Ebag333 - Perhaps one of our attorney or law student readers can help you with your lack of understanding on this. Aero is very correct. There's literally years of case law, that proves this buck can't be passed to Qualcomm regarding the advertising of the device. Palm is the device manufacturer and they take the heat if they say the Treo 800w can do something it really can't do. And it's Palm who obtained the existing certifications on the product.
    One, a friend of mine is an attorney who shares a hobby with me (wheeling). We had a discussion once about this exact sort of thing (in regards to Toyota "passing the buck" to one of their suppliers for a possibly defective part, in this case a head gasket with an estimated failure rate of up to 10%), and a lot of what I said above is what I gleaned from him.

    It's certainly possible that there's something I misunderstood, but I believe I got the gist of it correct.


    Palm takes the heat because the only heat they can take if from a lawsuit from you or Sprint. A lawsuit from you against Palm actually would not be strictly correct as Sprint is the one who sold you phone as well as being the advertisers. If Palm can't pass the buck to Qualcomm, why can Sprint pass the buck to Palm? Can't have it both ways.

    However in this lawsuit happy world we live in it's common (the rule rather than the exception) to include multiple parties on a single suit (which is a great way of double dipping for you). I actually can remember when a judge would throw out a suit like that.

    Anyway, there's no regulatory body that regulates GPS, and in your example a voluntary cert (assuming it's *COMPLETELY* voluntary, and has no bearing on sales, censure, limits, etc) would make zero difference in the "heat" they bring. It would (theoretically) notify the public that the device *MAY* (or may not) meet their requirements, but that would be the extent of it.

    If your said certification body brings heat against Palm for it...then it's not really voluntary is it? (Any more than "protection" from the Mafia would be voluntary.)
  17. #17  
    Ebags comments are totally incorrect when it comes to the chipset, GPS and the analogies.

    1) The consumer has NO relationship with qualcomm. The consumer has a direct relationship with Palm. Palm advertised the feature. They are responsible for testing it (not qualcomm) and they are responsible for fixing or remediation any broken primary features.

    2)The car analogies are false. If I buy a NEW Toyota that is supposed to be a five speed and it turns out to be a four speed, Toyota cannot say to me: "We bought the transmissions from XYZ Corp, you have to give them a call."

    3) The Dell and Microsoft analogies are incorrect. Palm sells an integrated device. Again they are responsible for testing functionality of a feature they proactively advertised as top functioning feature. When you purchase a compute with Microsoft on it you as the consumer proactively enter an agreement with Microsoft. (we have all seen the user license screens) . You do not enter an agreement with qualcomm when you buy a Treo.

    4)
    First off, no one caught that the 800w was not stand alone right away (even in the "professional" reviews). For quite a while there was a lot of back and forth about it.
    Wrong. I wrote to Palm 48 hours after the getting the device in Mid July. Questions about the failure to implement standalone GPS appeared in several places about that time. Again the very reason why there was some confusion is that PALM insisted that it did not need CDMA. I had people at Palm tell me it would work overseas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    I Forth, Qualcomm does advertise that the chipset used is capable of standalone GPS.
    So what? If that is true either Palm didn't implement it or Qualcomm lied and Palm has recourse to Qualcomm. In fact there is a third possibility, which is that Qualcomm told Palm it wouldn't without a CDMA call for legal reasons from the Broadcom settlement. All these go to Palm's respsonsiblity, not Qualcomm.

    Again the consumer has no relationship qwith Qualcomm them and no recourse to them as they do with Palm. Qualcomm does not FCC certify the 800W, Palm does. Any problem with the device derving from a qualcomm failure is between Palm and Qualcomm.

    Finally, *NONE* of what Aero's post has anything to do with what Mal said. What difference does it make if every device manufacturer subscribes to a certain standard if they all get their components from the same place?
    WTF? The difference is their FALSE ADVERTSING.
    This is the core issue. You are making it sound like every device manufacturer is claiming "Standalone GPS" -- they are not.

    Finally *NONE* of what Ebag's post has anything to do with the topic raised by Darnell. The issue goes to whether a feature a seller like Palm decided to promote works. Palm advertised this feature. It is not a questio of whether the LCD, chips, battery, antenna, drivers Palm buys or liscneces or has third parties make are hypothetically capable of supporting standalone GPS! Tthe question at hand is whether the combination built and tested and promoted by Palm as the 800w can.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    One, a friend of mine is an attorney who shares a hobby with me (wheeling). We had a discussion once about this exact sort of thing (in regards to Toyota "passing the buck" to one of their suppliers for a possibly defective part, in this case a head gasket with an estimated failure rate of up to 10%), and a lot of what I said above is what I gleaned from him.

    It's certainly possible that there's something I misunderstood, but I believe I got the gist of it correct.
    Don't even try. We are not a bunch of bumpkins at a pub. Either you misunderstood or your attorney should find another line of work.
    If Toyota installed a defective head gasket on a their new production vehicles, they are the supplier to the consumer. The consumer has no recourse and no relationship whatsoever with the head gasket maker, and Toyota cannot pass any responsibility in a consumer suit to the parts maker. they can subrogate their damage with a suit of their own agaisnt hte part maker. But it is Toyota that must make the consumer whole.

    Just review any number of cases on findlaw or lexis on this type of thing. You can find hundreds of civil suits on product failure or failure to deliver an advertised feature. The product manufacture cannot deny a suit by stating a parts maker is responsible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Palm takes the heat because the only heat they can take if from a lawsuit from you or Sprint. A lawsuit from you against Palm actually would not be strictly correct as Sprint is the one who sold you phone as well as being the advertisers. If Palm can't pass the buck to Qualcomm, why can Sprint pass the buck to Palm? Can't have it both ways.
    1) Again, WTF? You are 100% wrong. Samsung is not responsible if you discover your SAmsung TV doesn't have a prime feature advertised by Samsung. They cant say:"try bestbuy" if best buy didn't advertise the feature.

    WE have no recourse with Sprint. They made no advertising as to standalone. Palm did in Palm "Direct to Consumer Advertising" (and tha tis the legal term for it!)

    You are confusing yourself with Sprint and Qualcomm. Qualcomm did not "direct to consumer advertise" the standalone GPS, neither did Sprint. They have zero responsibility and liability. Palm has 100% responsibility.

    And by the way Palm does sells the phone direct of course! Not everyone buys it from Sprint as the retailer.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    2)The car analogies are false. If I buy a NEW Toyota that is supposed to be a five speed and it turns out to be a four speed, Toyota cannot say to me: "We bought the transmissions from XYZ Corp, you have to give them a call."
    Except for the first sentence, that is correct.

    Thus you should take up the issue with Sprint, not Palm.

    If I buy a NEW 800w that is supposed to be a standalone GPS and it turns out to be a aGPS, Sprint cannot say to me: "We bought the phone from Palm, you have to give them a call."



    Sorry guys, can't have it both ways.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by tli415 View Post
    Is it November already?
    Early voting.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions