Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

No 3G for HP Until 2007 90

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the shy-away-from-the-cutting-edge dept.
An anonymous reader writes to tell us CNet is reporting that HP will not be bringing 3G support to any of their new 'smart phones' until at least 2007. From the article: "[HP] cites the costs associated with the service, coupled with the fact that 3G's killer app -- TV and video streaming -- isn't yet viable on mobile phones as the primary reasons for its decision. '3G is still only occupying 3% of the world pie,' HP's Vice-President for Consumer Products and Mobile Business Group in the Asia-Pacific region, Chin-Teik SEE, told CNET.com.au at the company's 'magical mobility launch' event in Hong Kong last week."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No 3G for HP Until 2007 More

No 3G for HP Until 2007

Comments Filter:

  • HP makes phones?? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SecureTheNet ( 915798 )
    That's news to me!

  • If all parties (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MarkNijhof ( 926299 ) on Monday March 06, 2006 @01:31AM (#14856019)
    Are going to think like that 3G will never happen :)

    -Mark

    • Re:If all parties (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gjh ( 231652 ) on Monday March 06, 2006 @02:00AM (#14856083)
      Well... except that I have a 3G phone and use it all the time. It downgrades nicely to lower 2G stuff when I travel. It's a fantastic phone, I totally recommend it.

      It's not that 3G might not happen - it's whether *some markets* will end up preferring WLAN before 3G gets a good foothold. Because either way, it's going to be IP that ties it all together before long. It all depends on good phones and good flat-rate data plans.
      • If you "totally recommend it", don't you think it would be a good idea to say, you know, what phone is it?
        • No, the best thing about owning a 3G phone now is that noone else does, so you get fantastic bandwidth (provided you don't go through the bottleneck that is your phone company's portal). If people start recommending 3G phones, then before long everyone will have one and it'll crawl like GPRS.
      • In the UK at least, WLAN is not going to replace 3G. 3G networks already cover most of the landmass, WLAN covers assorted cafes, airports, hotels and trains.

        There's no killer app for 3G at present, but it's a great upgrade to the slow GPRS. A coworker of mine owns an IMate JASJAR, which has a large touchscreen and switches seamlessly between WLAN, 3G and 2G Data Networks. Hence he is able to browse the internet at the fastest available speed at a viable resolution wherever he likes. He even uses it in his h

  • The logical application of 3G bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday March 06, 2006 @01:33AM (#14856020)
    Is the logical application of 3G bandwidth really streaming video? Maybe if you are the operator charging per packet!

    The logical application of higher bandwidth on mobile phones is just an extension of current phone capabilities. Namely, increased mail functionality like graphics and graphical icons, and music downloads. In the business sphere, it makes sense to utilize that bandwidth for file transfers from one mobile phone to another.

    But streaming video wasn't ever really high on anyone's list of MUST HAVE functionality. At least not on the user side.
    • 3G is broadband internet in your pocket, do with it what you will or in a PCMICA card for browsing the net at work without being monitored ;-). All they both need is competitive bandwidth.
    • I don't know that most of those examples are must-haves. Better graphics and graphical icons? I can't imagine finding that, in and of itself, all that useful on a phone. Increased mail capability? Sure, that I could see.

      Overall, the increased bandwidth will be useful for lots and lots - you get your better graphics, I get my useful wireless connection on a laptop or PDA. I could also imagine mobile videophones finally taking off, once the bandwidth and processing power are there.
      • What "increased mail capability" are you talking about?

        If sending camera-phone photos becomes painless (not having to wait 5 minutes for a tiny picture to upload or download), or using non-ASCII characters becomes simple, then you've got yourself what I described in the original post.

        If you mean something else, I'd love to know what.
        • My only point is that what's a must-have for one, isn't necessarily a must-have for another - but the increased bandwidth will be useful regardless of what your personal must-have is. So it doesn't make any more sense to rule out streaming video as a logical application than it does anything else.

    • Re:The logical application of 3G bandwidth (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Beside news and maybe a few sitcoms, TV on your phone is not worth it. Ads all show how you'll never miss a sports game; but it's better to turn on the radio, close your eyes, and imagine the game described over the radio.
    • But streaming video wasn't ever really high on anyone's list of MUST HAVE functionality.

      No, but the problem for the telcos is how to soak up that bandwidth and keep charging for it. If you provide a big enough pipe at a price affordable for video, you're also providing enough of a pipe for the VOIP that's going to undercut your high-margin call charges.
    • Reasonable speed internet access is all I want. Web, email, all that. Video? Who cares?
      • where one of the requirements could be something like
        boss: "Meet me at X between 3PM and 5:30pm..."
        Me: "I'm sorry, which-- 3pm or 5:30?"
        boss: "be there from 3pm til I get there by 5:30 at the latest"

        that's why I kept ebooks in my cellphone..... video wouldn't kill me for that either..
        (although paying a lot for it would)
  • What I really want to know is whether or not 3G will finally bring about a reduction in rates for basic cellular plans. With bandwidth growing and with so many companies competing for customers in the cellular business, there should be a huge drop in rates. We shouldn't have to pay 60 bucks a month for basic cellphone planes, but sadly, I think that will somehow be the case for a very long time to come.
    • No doubt it should be cheaper, I've taken a 3G card and ran 4 extensions off it @ 59/month and not even used all the bandwidth. So why's one line still costing $60 and up, b/c the consumers will pay it...
    • Put it this way: the music industry promised us that CDs would bring cheaper music. The phone people haven't even hinted as much. I think "no" would be a safe assumption.
    • $39.99 for 1,000 minutes per month, unlimited mobile to mobile, and unlimited night and weekends. No data or SMS included though. Of course that plan only started with 250 minutes per month but I worked every code I could find and then got them to throw on some more for coming on to a contract for one year whereas I hadn't had one for four years of so. T-mobile has that kind of pricing without all the hassle I had to go through with Cingular but they don't have coverage where I am.
      • you get your basic service plus about $20 of usage credit (at 3-5 cents per text/email and about 20 cents/min for talk, except for in the middle of the night), half-price for calling someone using the same company, a 2 megapixel camera, the ability to check the train schedules and a dozen other bells and whistles that I don't care about.

        Which would you rather have?

        People keep claiming that Japanese cells are way ahead of American ones. Hogwash. They have lots of irrelevant features that American one
    • I'm under the impression that AT&T is almost back together from when it was split apart, PLUS it now has wireless phones [Cingular].

      Even more strangely, wired pay-phones have been increasing in price in a time where long-distance calls are pretty much free...

      Basic supply in demand: For inelastic goods, lowering the price a little won't increase quantity demanded much [not enough to make up for profit lost due to lower price]... Thus, it is in the supplier's interest to keep prices high. I believe
    • Hahaha. No, you won't see any cheaper cellphone plans.
      Cellcos, particularly in Europe and especially in the UK, Germany and some other countries, have paid huge 3G spectrum license fees that they have to get the consumer to pay. Governments were very pleased to get such a huge windfall - do you, the voting mobile phone user, think it was such a good idea now? Did you ever think anyone but you were going to pay for that license?
      There's also the rather huge cost of deploying the necessary infrastructure.
      Both

  • It's not that long... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sloths ( 909607 )
    2007 is only ten months away.

  • Wireless Internet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Eightyford ( 893696 ) on Monday March 06, 2006 @01:39AM (#14856037) Homepage
    Will 3G bring us cheaper and faster wireless internet access, or is the bandwidth not high enough?
    • I use a Vodafone branded Option 3G card; it connects at 384kbps in urban areas and costs £20/month for 200MB a month.

      That's fast enough for home use IMO; I used to use a Ricochet for home service in San Francisco.

      What stands in my way here is the pricing model. It's £1/MB after I reach my 200MB threshold.

  • Is anyone actually using tv phone functionality? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xtal ( 49134 ) on Monday March 06, 2006 @01:40AM (#14856040)
    I see ads for this everywhere, but I've never seen ANYONE making use of this service. I don't even know when I would if I wanted to. My phone is for talking to people with and maybe SMS. I don't use the internet functionality because the rates are insane.

    Telcos don't get it. Provide bandwidth, and let people build services that run on that bandwidth. Being greedy with the apps.. means you get to put a great big 3G waste of money in your pipe (and smoke it).
    • Over in Japan, we can get 384kbps data service for about $90/month. Eventually, some US ISP will provide the same service to drive the demand for mobile internet connectivity.
      • Yeah.. it only took 5 years for SMS to become affordable in North America. :)
      • Verizon Wireless offers unlimited BroadbandAccess for $60/month [verizonwireless.com] if you also have a voice plan. Without a voice plan, it's $80/month.

        BroadbandAccess is their name for EV-DO, i.e. average speeds of 400-700 kbps, up to 2.4 Mbps. Unfortunately, EV-DO is only available in major cities; everywhere else, you have to fall back to 1xRTT at 60-100 kbps (up to 144 kbps).
      • In the UK, you can get the same for £1 ($2) a day, but only if you're on O2 prepay and phone them up every morning to order the unlimited data package (where they try to sell you a contract "because doing this every day adds up quickly"). "Unlimited" rates for contracts start at £40 ($80) for a 1GB cap.
    • Telcos don't get it. Provide bandwidth, and let people build services that run on that bandwidth.

      No, actually they do get it. A one way ticket to obsolescence is just being a bandwidth provider. Ask any mid-level dialup ISP from the 90s how they're doing today now that Comcast and SBC have deployed broadband. Where do you think wireless providers will be if someone actually deploys wi-fi throughout a city, or a new technology comes along that provides 5mbit download speeds anywhere?

      That's why ever

      • THAT is the point of VCast and every other lame attempt to avoid becoming just pure bandwidth providers.

        Everybody loves selling things with zero marginal cost. I know I do.

        Would you buy an operating system for your computer from Ford Motor Company? If you could, would you expect it to be produced efficiently and be a quality product? (perhaps I selected a bad example :-) )
        Telcos are horrible at providing services and media, and they don't know what content or applications people want. Never mind they alread
        • Would you buy an operating system for your computer from Ford Motor Company? If you could, would you expect it to be produced efficiently and be a quality product? (perhaps I selected a bad example :-) )

          Well, you kind of did, because OSes and cars have nothing to do with each other. However if you look at GM's OnStar service, there you have a good example of a service that a car maker has branched into for added revenue (not that it's helped much in their case)

          I agree that telcos are horrible at pro
    • My phone is for talking to people with and maybe SMS. I don't use the internet functionality because the rates are insane.

      You think the internet rates are insane, but you happily send SMS messages? How much do you pay for one of these 160byte mini-emails anyway?

    • A mate of mine got a 3g phone the other week and we watched some sky tv on it down the pub. Don't think my mate will be watching it much though as he's registered blind!

  • US Cellphone system nearly irrelevant anyway (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mauriceh ( 3721 ) <mhilarius@gmai l . com> on Monday March 06, 2006 @01:45AM (#14856052)
    The US cellphone market ( and most of the Canadian one as well) is now so irrelevant to the world market, that it really does not matter.

    CDMA, TDMA, but not GSM for the most part.

    Sure, we have a couple of GSM providers, but on an alien frequency (1900).
    Add to that the greed of the N. American phone and cellphone providers, and not much in the way of progress is likely to happen here.

    So, 3G will slowly push ahead in Asia, where all the tech now is, Europe will follow, and that's all folks.

    In the meantime tech like WIMAX will progress, people will soon have portables using that or similar, VoIP on wireless will take off, and pretty soon cell phones as a separate device for talking (only) will become obsolete.

    • I dont know about Asia, or the rest of Europe, but I know France already has 3G.

      The 3G coverage is still pretty small (Paris and most big cities I think) but 3G phones are being marketed there (mostly high end phones).

      As for the services, apparently its mostly TV on your mobile and faster internet speeds.

      As for the US, The first US cell phone provider (Cingular)is using GSM, on both 800 and 1900. (Europe is using 900 and 1800), so its not that alien at all. They also have started deploying UMTS (aka 3G) in
      • Verizon was the #1 carrier in the US, in terms of number of customers, until Cingular and AT&T Wireless took a slight lead by merging. It appears that Verizon will be #1 again pretty soon - Cingular and ATTW were hemorrhaging customers before the merger, and they haven't really stopped.

        If you're just comparing the technologies, CDMA still has around 50% more customers in the US than GSM, and CDMA is where the real 3G rollout is taking place here. 1xRTT is available nationwide at up to 144 kbps; 1xEV-DO
    • Huh?

      You can't buy new TDMA service anymore, and GSM is the only option for new service on T-Mobile, Cingular. Yes, only a couple--two of the biggest nationals, due to mergers/buy-outs, but actually it's quite a few more [gsmworld.com].

      And "alien frequency"? Who cares? It's not exactly very difficult to make 1900 (or 850 as also used in the US) when you already have 900/1800...
      • And "alien frequency"? Who cares? It's not exactly very difficult to make 1900 (or 850 as also used in the US) when you already have 900/1800...
        Every GSM phone outside the teenage market has been 900/1800/1900 tri-band since forever. For the past twelve months 850 has been added to that (`quad-band') for most business phones.

        ian

    • Australia's biggest carrier Telstra have written off WiMax and are killing their CDMA network to replace it with a 3G HSDPA service running on the back of its GSM network.

      Although the network has a much larger range then WiMax, the bandwidth won't be cheap and it looks like Australia is going to go through the same crap it has gone through Wired Broadband, suffering poor bandwidth at high prices and a very slow adoption rate.

      Hopefully startup's like Unwired who are investing in WiMax infrastructure manage t

    • Re:US Cellphone system nearly irrelevant anyway (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 06, 2006 @03:05AM (#14856206)
      The US cellphone market ( and most of the Canadian one as well) is now so irrelevant to the world market, that it really does not matter.

      CDMA, TDMA, but not GSM for the most part.
      1996 just called, they want your critique of the North American cellular market back.

    • Re:US Cellphone system nearly irrelevant anyway (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In the meantime tech like WIMAX will progress, people will soon have portables using that or similar, VoIP on wireless will take off, and pretty soon cell phones as a separate device for talking (only) will become obsolete.

      Really? I don't see PDAs and the like replacing cell phones unless it's batteries don't need recharging every few hours. If I can't keep it on for more than, say, 6 hours, it's pretty useless to me as a phone, no matter what other "cool features" it has or the insane amount of available

  • you won't be watching a full football or cricket match," Chin-Teik told CNET.com.au.

    Maybe he should take a look at the competition first http://planet3.three.com.au/mobileTV/sport_cricket .asp [three.com.au] seems like 3 is already there

  • Cell Phones (Score:1, Insightful)

    by u16084 ( 832406 )
    There has been ALOT of hype about 3G... We all (well most of us) own a cellphone. There has been numerous polls relating to consumers watching TV/streams on their phones... and most are not interested (its too late at night to dig those polls up).
    IMHO its a waste of bandwidth. Instead of offering ESPN live feeds (a dull "yay") pass that bandwidth so its actually useable.. I'm forced to use a sierra cord on the road.. (verizon) and the speeds are just... not there.. more like a typical dial up connection (
    • I don't work for three, but if you have a 3 phone you also get a free PCMCIA card which allows you to hook your laptop into their network. It's limited to 1Gb/month but it's a start.
  • HP waits while Japanese mobile companies make 3G work. I remember when Japanese companies used to watch HP take risks and innovate, then copy HP. Looks like the US has conceded the tech innovation leadership to the rest of the world for at least the next generation, which will probably last at least 15-20 years.

  • True for GSM, but False for CDMA (here and "cheap" (Score:3, Informative)

    by neurocutie ( 677249 ) on Monday March 06, 2006 @02:23AM (#14856134)
    HP's stance is not completely on the level. Yes, for the GSM world, including the US, 3G is not really here yet and pricing is also steep for data. But for CDMA, 3G is very much here (Verizon and Sprint) and pricing of 3G (EVDO) for handsets is very reasonable ($15/mo). And there are several decent multimedia and smartphones that support CDMA/EVDO (3G) already, with more on the way. So it is HP that is not keeping up with the market (at least for CDMA in the US).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • I can't speak for the whole GSM world (which includes the third world where they're more bothered right now with coverage than video messaging), but 3G seems to be pretty much rolled out across Britain, and probably most of Europe.

        That's true, but is anyone making money out of it? The only person I know who has a 3 phone is my (ahem) personal trainer, who appears to have switched because it's cheap. And 3's latest campaign to get people to switch is offering to _pay_ for incoming calls (ie splitting t

    • There's a chance that some idiot reporter did s/UMTS/3G/.

      UMTS is still an infant technology with very few successful rollouts outside of the U.S. and no rollouts whatsoever within the U.S. HP would be very smart not to support UMTS, given its abysmal track record.

      On the other hand, not supporting CDMA2000 1xEV-DO in the U.S. market would be suicidal with any new smartphone. Note that it seems like this announcement was made by one of their Asian region VPs, so he may indeed have been talking about UMTS.
      • It seems like HP is exclusively a GSM phone manufacturer, and has no CDMA offerings whatsoever.

        Thus, not putting in UMTS would be a wise decision for them. Their units will have no problems competing in the U.S. on GSM-based providers, and they're not even bothering to try competing with EV-DO capable CDMA phones - they won't work on Verizon or Sprint networks at all.

  • ugh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ex Machina ( 10710 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [smailliw.nahtanoj]> on Monday March 06, 2006 @02:27AM (#14856142) Homepage
    3G's killer app -- TV and video streaming

    Do these morons really think I want to pay them to watch 160x120 videos of the black eyed peas on my phone? This is not the killer app you are looking for!

    • Re:ugh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pimpimpim ( 811140 )
      but it's spot on! Just this month I saw 2 schoolgirls looking at some Beyonce video on their mobile phone. That's where a lot of money is, and since a lot of these kids aren't paying their phonebills themselves anyway, they'll use all those overly expensive functions, and make the telcos happy.

      Just think of it, all those ads you see on MTV for jamba packages with 3 ringtones for 5 euro, no sane person would use that, but still they're apparently making lots of money on it (howelse would they be able to pa

      • Re:ugh (Score:3, Funny)

        by Ex Machina ( 10710 )
        those ads you see on MTV for jamba packages with 3 ringtones for 5 euro

        Not everyone lives in a country that uses quad damage power ups for money.

    • Re:ugh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ttsalo ( 126195 )
      Do these morons really think I want to pay them to watch 160x120 videos of the black eyed peas on my phone? This is not the killer app you are looking for!

      They just have not accepted that people just want reasonably priced IP connectivity. They want to lock people to their own services and charge money for something else than just transmitted bytes.

      The operators in my country (.fi) have been complaining that there is too much competition to allow them to develop new services. I say: your new services s

  • 3% of the world market? Ever heard of critical mass? You need to force a format adoption, you can't just sit and wait for your competitors to make the format a standard greater than 3%, otherwise people will associate them with that manufacturer! Technology will be consumed, even if it is not yet viable. That is why we have Slashdot. Gadget freaks, and forward thinking individuals will buy these products, show them off, and then more will purchase them. Silly man.

  • Reasons for embracing 3G (Score:4, Informative)

    by titanium2k6 ( 959148 ) on Monday March 06, 2006 @02:55AM (#14856184)
    In South Africa 3G networks are becoming more mainstream. The cellular provider here, Vodacom, has set up the pricing structure as follows:

    * 3G video calls are charged at the same rate as your current voice rates. That's very forward thinking in my opinion, as it means there is no cost differential between making a voice call or a video call. Video calling is great, don't knock it till you've tried it. I'm hearing impaired and the streaming quality of 3G is so good that I can lipread the person at the other end and have a proper conversation; something I've never been able to do until 3G and 3G cellular phones were introduced (I'm using a Sony Ericsson V600i fyi)

    * 3G data usage is charged at the rate of R2/mb, which is around 0.32 USD per megabyte. That's for out-of-bundle rates, so if you signed up for a data bundle, the per megabyte rate would be even lower. Data speeds are unbelievably fast - last week I had to retrieve an email attachment in the client basement parking (prior to a meeting with the client). Attachment was 2Mb in size, it took less than a minute to download it. I have noticed, however, that this depends on how crowded a 3G cell area is - the more 3G users, the slower the speeds.

    The next technology on the horizon that will replace 3G is HSPDA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) which in theory should offer around 2Mbit/sec. Until then, 3G is a very good stepping stone that will last for a few years yet, and I would think that manufacturers who don't hop onto the 3G bandwagon reasonably early stand to lose a lot of their potential marketshare.

    Cheers

    • 3G data usage is charged at the rate of R2/mb, which is around 0.32 USD per megabyte. That's for out-of-bundle rates, so if you signed up for a data bundle, the per megabyte rate would be even lower. Data speeds are unbelievably fast - last week I had to retrieve an email attachment in the client basement parking (prior to a meeting with the client). Attachment was 2Mb in size, it took less than a minute to download it.

      God, I should move to Africa. Here in Canada with Rogers it costs 7 dollars [shoprogers.com] for a plan

  • What? They already have a 3G laptop. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The hp nc6140 already has a 3G ev-do verizon cell modem in it.
    http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF25a/3219 57-64295-89315-321838-f33-1809460.html [hp.com]

  • "not yet viable?" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dhart ( 1261 ) * on Monday March 06, 2006 @04:01AM (#14856281)
    "not yet viable?" hmm... tell that to my Motorola A835 (Three Network Australia) c.2004, which is dated but still working fine, video and all.

  • Killer App ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pop69 ( 700500 ) <billy&benarty,co,uk> on Monday March 06, 2006 @04:26AM (#14856319) Homepage
    I have a normal GPRS mobile, the internet stuff is useful but not a killer.

    For me the useful things my current phone (Sony Ericsson K750i) does are the camera (2 megapixel) and the MP3 player (1 gig capacity). Means I carry one thing in my pockeet instead of three.

    The real killer app for me is the ability to control my PC with it over bluetooth, handy for presentations and stuff, and for the look on peoples face when the PC suddenly gets a mind of its own.

    The most I've ever used the internet access for is to check football (soccer) results on a Saturday afternoon when I wasn't near a TV.

  • "Old" HP vs "New" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ratboy666 ( 104074 ) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <legiew_derf>> on Monday March 06, 2006 @04:35AM (#14856331) Journal
    The old HP brought us the HP 65. What was the market for that? 3%? No, it was 0%, since the product had never been made or marketed. It new and exciting.

    The new HP is worried about "nascent markets", and is delaying enabling products.

    The old HP brought us RPN, and some fine diagnostic kit, that was new and exciting.

    The new HP brings us reasonable office printers. I guess it isn't nascent; I like my HP 3015.

    They are sure boring now, which is sad because HP is a melange of companies that sure were not boring. HP: first in micro tech, diagnostics, DEC: first in minis, COMPAQ: first in PC cloners.

    It looks like first becomes last after two mergers.

    Ratboy

    • I would consider HP's newer printers only marginally OK at best. We still buy them becuase we've always bought HP. It makes the maintenance a little easier when your LaserJet 4 and LaserJet 4250 are really similar in design. That said, empirical evidence would suggest that the 42XX lines have a much higher mean time between failure than the LJ4s that we are still using. Specifically there seems to be a faulty gear mechanism in the 42XX series that, according to our printer support contractor, will fail
  • I won't be looking at a HP Smartphone until 2007 then.

    What is this? The middle ages? I don't know about the US but the rest of us here have moved on from GSM/TDMA/CDMAOne. Hell, I've been using UMTS for over 2 years now and I'm wondering when the hell smart phone manufacturers were intending to catch up.

  • Power Use (Score:2, Informative)

    by archiDORK ( 598460 )
    The real difficulty here is power consumption. Most 3G radios use 2Wh where as a GMS/GPRS can use less than 1Wh. Combine this with a high power XScale processor and you going to have a short battery life.

    Perhaps, next generation of 3G radios will provide longer battery life. After all there is only so much one can do with a 3Wh battery.

  • 4G (Score:1)

    by dohzer ( 867770 )
    People are still talking about 3G?
  • I gave into the evil known as Verizon for the EVDO. They dropped the all-you-can eat another $20 (so still $60 USD) and finally let a few handsets be used tethered. Still, all of their other bullshit applies with even one other twist, being you can't browse from the handset directly on your data plan unless you get their cheesy Vcast video crap. It is pretty damned cheesy too. It works okay from a tech stand-point but they're making little one to three minute clips from our already existing plethora of usel
  • I use my phone all the time as a 3g-modem for data. It's awesome. I never even tried videocalls, that doesnt interest me one bit.

    Best of all? I've got putty on my phone. You cant beat having access to your servers 24/7. It's nothing you use for casual use, but for emergencies it's unbeatable.
  • HP is missing the bandwagon, once again. It took them *YEARS* to develop their T-Mobile PDA phone, and it was already outdated within months of release. 3G *is* more than capable of realtime video streaming. In fact, I use it already. I currently use a UTStarcom xv6700 (AKA HTC Apache) on Verizon with EVDO. With a $59 app from MyTinyTV [mytinytv.com], I can use my home cable and internet connection to steam any channel I want using my TV tuner on my home PC to my PDA. 3G might not be available in more than 3% of th
  • I've had a 48G since 1993.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close