Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39
  1.    #1  
    I was wondering if Windows Mobile Treo will include Wifi.
    Wifi is a must for Skype.
  2. #2  
    No WIFI, but its confirmed that SD WIFI cards work. Also WIFI is not a must for Skype. It works fine over EVDO (which the Treo 700w DOES have.)

    Surur
  3. DHart's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    274 Global Posts
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    No WIFI, but its confirmed that SD WIFI cards work. Also WIFI is not a must for Skype. It works fine over EVDO (which the Treo 700w DOES have.)
    I think ur missing the point here. Skype through WiFi costs no minutes. This is the killer application for a mobile phone. Several handset manufacturers are feverishly working on developing technology that will provide seamless (transparent to the user) handoff between a WiFi hotspot and a cell tower.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart
    I think ur missing the point here. Skype through WiFi costs no minutes. .
    evdo is data not minutes.....no?
  5. #5  
    Ask yourself this question - do you buy a notebook pc just to use Skype?

    If yes, then Skype is a killer app.
    If no, then Skype is not a killer app.
  6. #6  
    i and a number of associates use it all over the world and it is awesome. two apps i use worldwide that make travel a bit nicer--1. skype 2. slingbox
  7. #7  
    eBay thought it a killer enough app to pay $2.6 Billion.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  8. #8  
    Most people with EVDO will go for the unlimited data plan, wont they? If so then Skype via EVDO is 100 times better than WIFI, simply for the wider coverage.

    Surur
  9. #9  
    WIMAX along with SKYPE will be a killer combination.
  10. Cartman's Avatar
    Posts
    700 Posts
    Global Posts
    879 Global Posts
    #10  
    Skype sucks

    Use open standards VoIP...
  11. Cartman's Avatar
    Posts
    700 Posts
    Global Posts
    879 Global Posts
    #11  
    I use SJPhone... a SIP based VoIP application for WM (and its also free).
  12. DHart's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    274 Global Posts
    #12  
    Yes, EVDO is data. I stand corrected. The point is that EVDO costs $'s. Skype is FREE. While Wi Fi is not always free (but many times it is), it is MUCH faster than EVDO. The bang for the buck is much higher.

    From Sprint.com: "Sprint has initiated Mobile Broadband service in 75 markets nationwide and 222 airports coast-to-coast - where you can experience wireless data speeds averaging 400 to 700 Kbps with peak rates up to 2.0 Mbps."

    Wi-Fi Speeds from EE Times:

    "...the 802.11b standard, with a peak physical-layer rate of 11 Mbits/s, typically delivers a net peak 5 to 6 Mbits/s, while the 802.11a and 802.11g standards, with a peak PHY data rate of 54 Mbits/s, deliver a net peak of around 20 to 24 Mbits/s."

    This does not include 802.11n which will be much faster than 11a/g.

    Slawyer, you make a good point. From WiMax.com:

    "WiMAX supports very robust data throughput. The technology at theoretical maximums could support approximately 75 Mbps per channel (in a 20 MHz channel using 64QAM code rate).

    Real world performance will be considerably lower---perhaps maxing out around 45 Mbps/channel in some fixed broadband applications. Remember however, that service across this channel would be shared by multiple customers.

    Actual transmission capabilities on a per customer basis could vary widely depending on the carrier's chosen customer base, which is actually an inherent strength because it can be defined by QOS in a deliberate fashion to offer different bandwidth capabilities to customers with different needs (and different budgets).

    Mobile WiMAX capabilities on a per customer basis will be lower in practical terms, but much better than competing 3G technologies. WiMAX is often cited to possess a spectral efficiency of 5 bps/Hz, which is very good compared to other broadband wireless technologies, especially 3G."

    So you see, all the various forms of Wi-Fi are much faster than 3G (both EVDO on the CDMA side and HSPDA on the GSM side). But their availability is far smaller than the traditional cellular networks. If a phone existed that could hand off transparently when moving from a Wi-Fi available area to a cell network only available area, the user benefits greatly.

    Cell network service providers will not like this. For now, they control the handset offerings to the user because their networks are dominant and they subsidize the cost of the handset to the end user in exchange for fixed length service contracts with penalties for cancellation. We had a similar situation (a dominant network) previously when AT&T owned the only network available to the user (in the US) - until Judge Greene brought down the hammer (or rather gavel) and ruled that AT&T had a monopoly. The network was broken apart in order to provide competition. The result is that today we have multiple companies offering greatly improved telecom services at much better prices.

    A new wave of networks are being built now to compete with the wireless service operators - Wi-Fi and WiMax. As these networks spread, the result will be even more and better services for consumers due to competition.

    The handset manufacturer who offers handsets that can utilize multiple networks transparently might be able to break the strangle hold that wireless service operators have on design specs. It is conceivable that the economics of a handset purchase could switch to a model where it would be less expensive for a consumer to buy directly from the manufacturer in spite of the service carrier's subsidy.

    This is why Wi-Fi (including WiMax) and Skype are a killer application. You see there is a reason that the service providers charge the high fees they do. BECAUSE THEY CAN.
    Last edited by DHart; 11/03/2005 at 11:41 AM.
  13. DHart's Avatar
    Posts
    273 Posts
    Global Posts
    274 Global Posts
    #13  
    Gex, I stand corrected again. You are correct. Wi-Fi and ANY VOIP offering free voice calls is the killer application. And an open standard VOIP client application is very nice if it gains enough market share to become the predominant standard. Linux is an open standard in PC OS's, but it is not the predominant standard. It is also making the predominant standard offerer (M$) very nervous as it gains momentum.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart
    Wi-Fi and ANY VOIP offering free voice calls is the killer application.
    I couldn't agree more. I don't feel Skype is "the killer" application due to it's proprietary protocol. SIP on the other hand, is a documented protocol, allowing interoperability between different vendors of software. Instead of only being able to call other Skype users, you can call anyone with a SIP enabled client.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by gex
    I use SJPhone... a SIP based VoIP application for WM (and its also free).
    Some things have non-discretionary pricing but nothing is free. The price of the "free lunch" is included in the beer.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsupp
    I couldn't agree more. I don't feel Skype is "the killer" application due to it's proprietary protocol. SIP on the other hand, is a documented protocol, allowing interoperability between different vendors of software. Instead of only being able to call other Skype users, you can call anyone with a SIP enabled client.
    Skype does not use SIP (session initialization protocol) because it is peer-to-peer, IP address to IP adress, PC to PC. SIP is not a transport protocol but a call setup protocol. It is used to transmit the destination number to the IP to PSTN gateway. If you use Skype Out, Skype uses SIP.

    Skype is really an addressability service. It allows you to find my current IP address without knowing anything but name or ID. However, if you already know my IP address, you can talk to me even if we are not both using the Skype client. The problem that Skype addresses is that my IP address changes even more frequently than my location.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by gex
    Skype sucks

    Use open standards VoIP...

    say what you will, but skype works well all over the planet--as long as i can get a high speed conection in my hotel room.

    ditto for my slingbox-
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart
    Yes, EVDO is data. I stand corrected. The point is that EVDO costs $'s. Skype is FREE........
    That is not the point. Your post is true but it consistently confuses the values and misses the point. There are four important differences between EVDO and WiFi, not two, and technology does not make the list. There is price, pricing, speed, and coverage. Depending upon your lifestyle and application, a different one of these may trump the other. Please do not project yours onto all the rest of us.

    In the short run (5 years?) EVDO clearly wins on coverage. There are lots of us for whom coverage trumps all.

    The proposition that Wi-Fi and Skype are "free" is specious. For some users in some circumstances, Wi-Fi may have 0 marginal cost. That is not the same as free. The cost of the free lunch is included in the price of the beer. The cost of frequent flyer miles is included in the fare. Neither is Skype free. It is an application of the Internet that one already pays for; no marginal cost for peer-to-peer on the Internet but not free. If one wishes to pass from the Internet to the PSTN, then Skype has marginal cost.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart
    The point is that EVDO costs $'s. Skype is FREE. While Wi Fi is not always free (but many times it is), it is MUCH faster than EVDO. The bang for the buck is much higher.

    From Sprint.com: "Sprint has initiated Mobile Broadband service in 75 markets nationwide and 222 airports coast-to-coast - where you can experience wireless data speeds averaging 400 to 700 Kbps with peak rates up to 2.0 Mbps."

    Wi-Fi Speeds from EE Times:

    "...the 802.11b standard, with a peak physical-layer rate of 11 Mbits/s, typically delivers a net peak 5 to 6 Mbits/s, while the 802.11a and 802.11g standards, with a peak PHY data rate of 54 Mbits/s, deliver a net peak of around 20 to 24 Mbits/s."
    EVDO is a fixed rate with known coverage. Wi-Fi is a variable rate with varying and (to a large degree) unpredictable coverage. You definitely get what you pay for. Last summer, while on business in Europe, I relied on Skype for much of my communications. Europe is considerably more wi-fi covered than the US, but finding accessible, cheap wi-fi was a big challenge. My phone needs were covered by Skype for about 1/3 the cost of international roaming, but with no where near the convenience.

    You also might reconsider your speed comparison in a real world application. I routinely get 500-800 kbps with my i730 and EVDO, according to DSLReports.com. With the built in wi-fi, using the same speed test, I get about ... 800 kbps at most locations I've used it and as little as 200kbps at a Starbucks or an airport. The processor speed of the PPC device and the wi-fi source provider are the bottleneck on network throughput so don't count on any real panacea with wi-fi and your phone.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHart
    .... The handset manufacturer who offers handsets that can utilize multiple networks transparently might be able to break the strangle hold that wireless service operators have on design specs. It is conceivable that the economics of a handset purchase could switch to a model where it would be less expensive for a consumer to buy directly from the manufacturer in spite of the service carrier's subsidy.....
    You are correct that really smart handsets are our best bet for getting the best of all possible worlds. Any decade now you may get a Treo with Wi-Fi. You may even be able to afford it when it comes.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions