Re: And now we know ...
Well, they still have the spectrum, so they haven't turned those gains into cash.
The spectrum has definitely improved their network, though
224 posts • joined 14 Aug 2008
Well, they still have the spectrum, so they haven't turned those gains into cash.
The spectrum has definitely improved their network, though
Mostly, they are going to be recording these videos and pictures on an iPhone, and Apple then wants them to upload them to iCloud.
I take a lot of photos on a proper camera that uses full size SD cards. Most people who are serious about photography do. (Newer cameras are often wireless capable, to be fair). The retina display on this laptop makes it a pretty nice computer for photographic purposes, but getting the photos from my camera is going to involve plugging an adaptor from USB-C to regular USB into the computer, then plugging a USB card reader into that, and then plugging an SD card into that. This is going to be a pain, and lots of things might break.
This is why you want a bit of both. Assuming the mergers go through, O2/Three are going to be strong on low frequencies but weak on high, whereas EE/BT are going to be weak on low frequencies but strong on high. Only Vodafone is going to have a good balance. This may be due to the company having grown fairly organically rather than being a product of mad mergers, and due to being a company where the engineers are listened to by managements. (There are lots of other things wrong with Vodafone, but they have this relatively right).
I meant "Three presently owns 30MHz (2x15MHz) at 1800MHz". Muphry strikes again.
I think there is an error in the second table. Three presently owns 20MHz (2x15MHz) at 1800MHz, and O2 owns 12MHz (2x6MHz). That's a total of 42MHz, while it has just been shown as 12MHz in the table.
In addition to that, there were TDD spectrum allocations at 1900MHz (band 39) that were part of the 3G auction in 2000. These have never been used, but I suspect that the operators still have them. They are not mentioned in the table, though. EE have 10MHz, O2 have 5MHz, and 3 have 5MHz. (Vodafone doesn't have any). These could conceivably be used for TD-LTE, although I have no idea if anyone is considering it.
Three and O2s spectrum holdings fit together pretty well, I think. They are presently third and fourth in terms of spectrum holdings, with Three having more 3G and 4G spectrum than O2, and O2 having a 2G holding at 900MHz that Three lacks. Merge them together and they will have a (very slightly) larger holding than Vodafone and a much smaller one than EE. I can't see any competition issues with the spectrum holdings. The network share agreements might take a little time to untangle, but I am sure this can be done. The regulator may be involved, or might not. A similar untangling was necessary after the T-Mobile/Orange merger, but they managed it.
There may be spectrum issues with the EE/BT merger, though. EE has a lot more spectrum than any other network, and BT has an additional holding at 2600MHz that they bought in the 4G auction and aren't using. It is likely that divestiture of this holding (or some of EEs other spectrum somewhere) will be a requirement if the BT/EE merger is going to be permitted. In this case it will be interesting to see who ends up with it. Without an O2/Three merger one would expect it would likely end up with O2, who are at present quite short of 4G spectrum. With an O2/Three merger, it's harder to tell.
>FWIW the European Commission was forced to act because they discovered evidence
>of illegal collusion between operators over roaming.
I'm not disputing any of this. To it I would add that the way GSM roaming was initially set up - itself a regulatory matter, although one in which the regulators probably just rubber stamped what the operators and equipment manufacturers presented them with - positively encouraged this kind of collusion. Something clearly had to change, and the operators deserved to have someone crack down on them, but I don't think what we got - regulatory price fixing - was the right way for things to change.
>Which meant low income were subsidising EU travellers with expense accounts ...
>which is hardly a progressive move.
I think the situation was more that EU travellers with expense accounts had previously been subsidising low income mobile users, and the impact of the regulation of roaming charges reduced the level of these subsidies, honestly. Margins on roaming were (and in the case of non-EU roaming, still are) huge, and mobile operators were using these to subsidise their very competitive, high-capex, low margin domestic businesses. Various decisions - both regulatory and operator led - caused the industry to evolve with this structure, but I don't think the result was either healthy or sustainable. For one thing, it discouraged the large number of travellers who are paying their own phone bills and who do not have expense accounts from using mobile services at all, even though the infrastructure is there, the service was likely to be useful to them, and the price they would be willing to pay is considerably more than the marginal cost to operators of providing for it. The operators were making so much money from travellers with expense accounts that they were willing to forgo this business, but the trouble was that the regulatory structure prevented anyone else from bidding for it.
Ms Kroes' solution - which led to regulators setting prices, basically - was a bad one, but it was an attempt to address a real problem. Good solutions would have instead involved networks being able to bid on price for incoming roaming customers. You travel to Germany and receive a text from each German operator stating the price of roaming to them. You then reply with another text choosing an operator, and you are charged the rates of that operator. Something like that. Possibly you also have the ability to nominate the choice on a website or app before you travel. (This still leaves the issue of what exactly your local operator charges for forwarding your calls when you are away and for billing you later, but this is a smaller issue to resolve).
Well, no. It's one of the biggest industries in the world. All industries tend to end up being by a small clubs of people, however.
It's a very rare (possibly nonexistent) "merger" that isn't really one company taking over another.
One of the basic rules of company mergers is that when a series of mergers occur and the company name is constructed by combining the names of the parties that merged, then *eventually* the company name will revert to that of the company that was dominant in all this. Hence "Total Elf Fina" reverting to "Total", "Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Discover" (the comma in that one was a work of genius) reverting to "Morgan Stanley", "Maersk Sealand" merging with "P&O Nedlloyd" to form "Maersk", and "British Sky Broadcasting" merging with various other companies to form "Sky".
I have a Philips Blu-Ray player that adds "Smart TV" functionality to my (older and not very smart) TV. Just about the most useful function of this player was that it ran an iPlayer app. However, a month or two back it stopped working and I started receiving "iPlayer is not supported by your device" errors instead. This is. well, annoying, as I now need to find another way to stream iPlayer to my TV.
Is the explanation given in this article why it no longer works?
The reason I don’t really like all-in-ones like the iMac is that screens are the longest lasting part of a PC for me. I tend to use a multi-screen setup with my newest monitor as the primary monitor, the next oldest as a second monitor, and the third oldest as a third monitor (if the graphics hardware allows it). I don’t want to throw a perfectly good monitor away every time I buy a new PC. Target monitor mode at least partly alleviates this (particularly when an iMac costs about the same as an equivalent screen on its own - this is not the first time this has happened) and the lack of it is a deal-killer for me.
I’m not into conspiracy theories as to why Apple has disallowed it - the explanation is that the present version of Thunderbolt can’t handle the bandwidth. I am sure the next version of this iMac will fix this, which is a good reason to wait for it.
I think the big reason why contactless travel has just increased on buses is that we now have capping. If you are making multiple journeys in a day or changing from one mode of transport to another, you now pay no more than a Travelcard and/or daily bus pass. Up until now, although contactless has worked on buses, you simply paid a single fare for each journey - no matter how many you made in a day. This means that it is now reasonable to simply use your contactless credit card to pay for all your daily travel, whereas in the past it was useful for those emergency situations when you had run out of money on your Oyster card (or left it at home) but you probably didn't want to use it for your regular use.
There is a class of middle-men (Carphone Warehouse, Phones 4U, Buymobiles etc) that exist between the mobile networks and many of their customers. These retailers are very expensive for the mobile networks, the networks have always resented their existence and have always thought that the profits being made by these people are rightfully theirs. The trouble is that many customers keep using the third party retailers rather than the mobile networks own direct sales businesses. This is because of the astounding level of incompetence of the networks' own in-house retail businesses. The networks are unaware of the level of their own incompetence at retail, which has made this very hard for them to fix. (Phones 4 U are pretty awful themselves, so their continued existence kind of baffles me, but they and the other third party retailers are providing *something* that the networks themselves are not).
It has always been inevitable that the networks would at some point squeeze out the third party retailers by simply refusing to do business with them. This explains Carphone Warehouse's attempts over the last few years to transform itself into a general consumer electronics retail business, variously by stocking other products in its shops (remember when they were full of laptops?), doing an ultimately disastrous deal with Best Buy, and ultimately through a merger with Dixons/Currys/PC World. I am not sure that this means better service for customers - in fact I am pretty sure it means worse - but that's where we are.
As long as the driver claims on some policy and that policy pays, then there really isn't a problem. If the normal situation is that the driver uses his own insurance, but that Uber also has "last resort" insurance for cases where this goes wrong, that seems fine to me. In fact, that seems good to me.
If you they are making most of your calls indoors and there is not a lot of ambient noise, they may just be putting everyone on speaker, too.
These are people who have never owned PCs, and don't make a lot of voice calls.
Clearly not, no.
Some of us really like a £ symbol above the 3, too.
There will be new iPhones and new iPads in September and October, as there have been for several years. As for Macs, Intel is late with its next generation (Broadwell) hardware. Until Intel delivers this, all Apple can do is the occasional minor speed bump like this one. Intel is highly unlikely to deliver in significant quantities until next year. There have been a few rumours that Apple has a 12 inch retina display Macbook Air in the works. I suppose it is not unimaginable that they could release this with current Haswell hardware, but they will probably wait.
Ah ye, another technology for which usage peaks long after it has become obsolete
He has something that works for him, so he keeps using it. Nothing wrong with that.
Given that GRRM's published writing career goes back to the early 1970s, he presumably did originally use typewriters. I'm curious about when exactly he switched to a word processor. Did he use Wordstar on CP/M before on DOS?
Apple gave one of its products a minor spec bump and a price cut. Both these things would be welcome if I were looking to buy one right now. (I am not, although I have the 2011 model and am happy enough with it for now. Undoubtedly some people are). Total non-story for everyone else, though.
There are lots of businesses using large fleets of iPad 2s for relatively simple tasks: at tills, as interactive guides to information, as electronic signs, and whatever. The hardware needs for such tasks are often low, and many such businesses have infrastructure set up to allow charging and software updating of their devices using Apple's old style hardware connector rather than the new Lightning connector. Apple continues to sell the iPad 2 to keep such customers happy. If you are a consumer, buying an iPad 2 makes no sense whatsoever, as it is ridiculously underpowered and overpriced for today's requirements. If you are a business who has hundreds or thousands of them, they are adequate for whatever task you are using them for them, and there are advantages of having common hardware for all the iPads you are using plus you don't want to upgrade your infrastructure, buying more iPad 2s might make sense.
Such customers aren't any more inclined to buy iPads at Christmas than at any other time of year, though, so the market share of the iPad 2 goes down at Christmas. Simple.
Three have a 2x10MHz chunk at 1800MHz, which becomes 2x15MHz in 2015 when EE are forced to divest a bit more spectrum. They also have 2x5MHz at 800MHz. O2 have only 2x10MHz at 800MHz. So although Three's spectrum holdings are not that huge, O2's are only half the size of Three's post 2015.
Vodafone have 2x10MHz at 800MHz and 2x20MHz at 2600MHz i.e. lots of spectrum
T-Mobile have 2x5MHz at 800MHz, 2x35MHz at 2600MHz and 2x50MHz (to be reduced to 2x45MHz in 2015) at 1800MHz i.e. lots and lots and lots of spectrum. (They do have to run a 2G network in that 1800MHz as well, but the can probably do that on 2x10MHz, so there is plenty of space left over that they are using and can use for 4G).
Plus there is 2x15MHz at 2600MHz that belongs to BT. It's quite possible O2 or Three will buy or licence that if they run into serious constraints.
Plus most of the operators have unpaired spectrum that could be used for TD-LTE in a pinch. (Some of this is from the 3G auction and some from the 4G auction). More of this might be auctioned, too. We will see how it plays out. My hunch is that O2 and Three will be able to find spectrum from somewhere when they need it.
If you look at Three's terms and conditions, it says that if you use nothing but the free roaming for an entire calendar month three times in a year, they will switch roaming off on your phone. This is clearly designed to prevent people from doing exactly what you are suggesting.
Three are also doing the bulk of their 4G on the 1800MHz spectrum that EE were forced to divest when T-Mobile and Orange merged. This is a totally reasonable thing for them to be doing, but they got access to this spectrum three months later than Vodafone and O2 got access to the spectrum that they are using - the stuff that they bought in the auction in early 2013. This meant that Three were pretty much obliged launch their network three months later than the other two operators.
That said, Three were promising 4G December for all their London customers with a compatible handset, and they are now saying that only a small number are getting it in December and most people will have to wait until January or February. Looks like their network may have one or two teething problems. Again, there is nothing too surprising about this, but some of their customers are getting a little impatient now. The timing of the announcement about free roaming to the US was a nice piece of PR, as this seems to be a very popular announcement.
With respect to the Amazon price, it might have been that Amazon themselves were out of stock and you were therefore seeing the price from a third party seller who had it in stock. Amazon themselves now seem to have it back in stock and are offering it for £135 as promised.
I don't think comparing the iPad mini with the Nexus 7 is terribly useful. Even though a 7.9 inch screen and a 7.0 inch screen sound similar in size, when you look at surface areas (taking into account that a screen with a 16:10 aspect ratio is smaller than a 4:3 screen with the same diagonal measurement), the area of the iPad mini's screen is 30.0 square inches, compared to 22.0 square inches for the Nexus 7. The iPad mini's screen is actually 36% bigger.
This actually is a good reason for many of us to buy an iPad mini rather than a Nexus 7. For me, 7 inch tablets like the Nexus 7 are too small, and the 8 inch size is much better. The Nexus 7 is a great device for the price, and if it works for you that's great, but there is actually a bit of a scarcity of high end Android tablets with screen sizes around that of the mini. Samsung makes a Galaxy Note 8 and a Galaxy Tab 8, but neither has anything like the screen resolution of the mini. (They are both 1280x800). I am sure the next generation of the Note 8 at least will have a high resolution screen, but for now we are waiting. A Nexus 8 would be nice, too, but once again, it does not presently exist.
In addition, those 8 inch Android tablets that do exist cost quite a bit more than the 7 inch tablets. The list price for the (lowish resolution) Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 8 inch is £299 compared to £199 for the Galaxy Tab 3 7 inch. (Both products are selling at rather less than the list price, but 50% more for 8 inch seems to roughly hold). High resolution 8 inch Android tablets will come along, and will be cheaper than the iPad mini, but I doubt the price difference will be as dramatic as when you compare it to the Nexus 7 or other 7 inch tablets.
Depends what you mean by "European bands". The TDD capable variants of the Samsung (and I think also LG) devices sold in Australia support the FD-LTE at 1800MHz and 2600MHz (bands used in much of the world, including Europe), but do not support the Europe only 800MHz digital dividend band. If sold in Europe, these devices would work on FD-LTE in areas with 1800MHz and 2600MHz coverage, but not in areas with 800MHz coverage only. The iPhone 5C and 5S are at present the only devices for which a variant exists that supports FD-LTE at 800MHz, 1800MHz, and 2600MHz, as well as FDD at 2300MHz. I can't imagine this is a problem. There will be many more devices that support all these bands available long before this spectrum is even auctioned.
That precise problem of British people getting nervous at that long single foreign ringback tone that they hear when they call me when I am abroad is what I would like to get rid of. I don't necessarily want people knowing that I am abroad, so I would like the standard ringback tone. I fear that every foreign telco I roam to would have to know about my preference, though, so this might be somewhat harder than just changing the ringback tone that is send when someone calls me when I am in the UK.
I believe that the standard ringback tone in Macau used to be different to that in Hong Kong. This was a problem, given that Macau is the place that people in Hong Kong go for sinful activities. Men from Hong Kong did not necessarily want their wives to know when they were there, and the ringback tone was a dead giveaway. So it was changed to be the same as Hong Kong.
One should point out that Philip Anderson has won a Nobel Prize already for something else. While it is not unheard of for a second Nobel prize in the sciences to be awarded to the same person, it is very rare, and one thinks that the committee would be particularly unlikely to make such an award in a case where it was already fairly contentious as to who would be missing out.
There have been cases where the Nobel committee have waited until after the person whose name was first on the paper (but everyone knows didn't really do the work) has died before awarding the prize. As the person with his name first in such cases has almost always managed it through having more seniority (a doctoral supervisor compared to a doctoral student, or a lab director compared to a researcher in the lab) and is therefore almost always older, this can be surprisingly effective.
There's no real question that Higgs and Englert deserve it here. The committee clearly decided not to try to choose one of the other three though.
This is all par for the course. It is unusual for there to not be more than three people involved in any major discovery. The Nobel committee almost always has to choose the most worthy winners from a group, and people with valid claims almost always lose out. The Nobel prizes in the sciences are very prestigious at least partly because the judges have almost always given them for the right discoveries over the last century or so. There's is always plenty of discussion as to whether they have given them to the right people though.
As for the theorists and not the experimentalists getting the prize, there is an unofficial rule that theorists do not get the prize until what they have predicted has been confirmed by experiment. At this time last year we were still waiting for results to be confirmed and published, so this year was realistically the first time Higgs and Englert could be honoured. As Englert is 80 and Higgs is 84 (and the prize is never awarded posthumously) there was a clear need to honour them as soon as possible. The experimentalists at CERN are all much younger, though, so there is plenty of time to honour them later. It might be that in a year or two there might be a better picture as to who exactly should be honoured. The same Nobel Prize could have been split between theorists and experimentalists, but this is a big enough discovery that there is much to be said for devoting two years' prizes to it.
Nexus 4, Nexus 5, and Nexus 7. They are definitely taunting us.
New iPads, new MacBook Pros, new Mac mini, and the new Mac Pro will all likely be with us before the end of the year. That's plenty.
Yes, I like the Mac mini, too. I don't want to have to buy a new screen every time I buy a new desktop.
I'd also like one with a core i7 and a powerful GPU, even if it meant the machine was a bit bigger. Apple doesn't do that though.
Also, the second generation iPod touch doesn't have any cameras. This would make running Instagram on it a touch sub-optimal, I would think.
This map is enlightening.
the people in China who do not speak Mandarin, are the people in the southern coastal provinces. These places are where much of the recent economic growth has occurred. That is, the non-Mandarin speakers are the rich people. That is, the richer parts of China are also the parts of country that have the least in common with Beijing culturally. This is not necessarily a positive thing for Chinese stability. One thing that Beijing is attempting to do by pushing Mandarin is to assert its culture over that of its provinces. (Most of the time it will deny that these provinces have any culture at all).
There is one thing that is good about using a tablet as a camera, which is the large screen of the tablet. Composition is much easier than on a phone sized screen, or on the postage stamp sized screens of many point and shoot cameras. This is particularly so on tablets with high resolution screens such as this one. Composition is still not as easy as on a camera with a proper viewfinder, but only a relatively small percentage of cameras in use these days have these any more. Because of this, I find photography to be easier on a tablet than on a phone or a digital compact. (Unfortunately, though, the cameras that manufacturers are putting in their high-end tablets are not as good as the ones they are putting on their high end tablets. The gap is closing, but it is still there).
Against this is the fact that some people are going to think you look like an idiot taking photographs with a tablet. Whether this bothers you is up to you.
Ron Casey, an Australian radio announcer with a right wing / sports show, managed to get fired in about 1997 after making a racist anti-Japanese rant on air due to a local rugby league competition having been renamed the "Nokia Cup" for sponsorship reasons. It was really very funny.
Given that the US uses different frequency bands to everywhere else, foreign variants aren't going to work very well in the US, particularly using 4G/LTE. (Chinese variants likely won't support LTE, as they don't have any LTE networks yet). For it to work properly in the US, Apple will have to release a US specific variant. (Asian/Middle Eastern variants should work OK in Europe, though). I think they probably will, but let's see.
Apple's strategy for the last few years has been that they release one new high-end phone, and the previous models then become their mid-market models. (Apple don't do low end phones). When they introduced the iPhone to Verizon, they produced a CDMA compatible version of their current high end phone (then the iPhone 4), but did nothing for the earlier models, so Verizon offered a high-end model only at first. This did clearly cost them business - once new models had been released and the iPhone 4 became cheaper, the total share of iPhones at Verizon went up considerable.
For China, Apple clearly can't do it this way. China is much poorer than America, and many people who want an iPhone will not be able to afford the new high end model. Therefore, if Apple have done a deal with China Mobile, they will have to make TD-SCDMA iPhones available at multiple price-points and not just the high end. They could do this by releasing new, TD-SCDMA compatible variants of the iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 as well as the new iPhone 5S, but they could also simply produce a new mid-market model of iPhone.
My theory is that this is the story behind the iPhone 5C. Apple's motivation for producing it is the need for a mid market TD-SCDMA iPhone for China Mobile. It certainly won't be restricted to China Mobile, and we will see variants of it for other network standards as well. Although we have been hearing things like "The iPhone 5C is aimed principally at developing markets, but will also be sold in developed markets", I think it is likely to sell well everywhere. At least, it will if it is any good.
Apple has produced at least six good versions of OS-X in 12 years. They stopped selling the 12 year old version about 11 years ago. Microsoft has produced only one good version of Windows to follow XP in that time. Microsoft was still selling XP licences for new machines (netbooks only, but still new machines) as recently as October 2010, and some of them were still in the channel being sold new as recently as 2011. It's hardly surprising that some of them are still in use.
4G is more computationally intensive than 3G. The modulation and compression schemes used by 4G mean that bandwidth is used more efficiently than 3G, but they are themselves more complex and the price of that higher spectrum efficiency is more complex computation to turn your bitstream into something that can be transmitted over the air. That requires a more powerful CPU, which uses more power and hence you have worse battery life. The good news is that CPUs improve in power efficiency thanks to Moore's Law, so in a year or two 4G phones will have much better battery life. People may remember that this happened with 3G, too. The first 3G phones had horrible battery life, but this is not really a problem any more.
The third generation iPad - the first with retina display - is too heavy. It's uncomfortable to hold for too long, and you are prone to drop it because it is heavy. Also, it is thicker than the previous generation, which is unusual for an Apple device. Also, the retina display sucks up far too much of the computational power of the thing, which is why it is not notably faster at doing anything than the previous generation. The revised fourth generation model that Apple released six months later fixed the second of these problems with a faster SoC, but the heaviness problem remains. Presumably the revised fifth generation model that we will see in two or three months will fix the size and weight issues, but big compromises were made for that retina display.
The whole reason why the iPad mini has been so successful is because it is so small and light compared to the big and heavy full size iPad. The last thing Apple wants to do is to lumber the mini with too much size and weight as they did the full sized iPad. Therefore, I have always been sceptical about seeing a retina mini this year. A second generation mini this year followed by a retina mini next year has been what I have been expecting all along.
A basic rule is that if one is buying a product, one should never buy optional insurance from the same person who is selling you the product. This applies to mobile phone insurance, payment protection insurance, car rental excess insurance, extended warranties (just another form of insurance, really) and a whole pile of other things. At best the insurance will be overpriced, and at worst it will be overpriced and inadequate as insurance. That's not to say that you should not buy insurance, just that you should buy it directly from a financial institution or insurance broker.
Mobile phone retailers (including Phones 4 U) have been particularly bad in this regard. They are not as bad as they used to be - situations in which you are forced to take it out with "one month free" and have to do something in that month to cancel it seem to be rarer now. Regulators have been cracking down (as here). Good.
Oh, how the ghost of Steve Jobs is laughing.