And here comes another Android phone

[abaez]

I'm sorry but that commenter basically just made up half that stuff. T-Mo doesn't have a prepaid data plan. AT&T does, but it's $20 for 100 megs of data.

And it's been confirmed to have only T-Mo 3g bands, so there is no way you're going to use VOIP with EDGE speeds with ATT.

"Active and old" google account. Really? What's a "google account" - you mean gmail? So what's the cutoff for that? Being in beta? Sounds ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is $199 for a brand new (rumored) SNAPDRAGON phone, with no subsidy? So google is going to take a couple hundred dollar loss on each phone?

 

[Zenmervolt]

BetaMAX was far superior to VHS. But it's worldwide adoption that matters in the end. The world chose GSM. It's far easier to deal with in terms of SIM card and what not. Also EDGE is considered 3G....

His point is A) technically, the world IS using CDMA with HSPDA/UMTS, and that B) the 4G standards that the US and the World adopts are also based on CDMA technology.

No, the world did not adopt EV-DO, but they did adopt a version of CDMA. Traditional GSM is dying.

Glad someone understood what I was saying. UMTS, HSDPA, HSPA+, and LTE all use CDMA to control channel access while the term "GSM" is properly only applied to a specific implementation of TDMA technologies that peaked with EDGE and has been superseded.

DLeRium, EDGE kind of scooted into a technical inclusion in 3G because it was technically faster than GPRS which was billed as "2.5G". The fact is that EDGE is still TDMA (read: ancient) and is simply not in the same performance class as the other "3G" technologies with a theoretical max of only 1 mbit and actual sustained speeds of only around 300 kbit. In terms of actual consumer performance class, I probably should have granted EDGE "2.75G" status, but it's handily outclassed even by the next slowest 3G technology.

 

[sswingle]

Why is everyone calling this "the google phone" when there are many out already with Android, and HTC is making this one just like they make several others?

 

[zerocool84]

Why is everyone calling this "the google phone" when there are many out already with Android, and HTC is making this one just like they make several others?

Cus this handset supposedly was made to Google's specs and they had a say in how it is.

 

[bigal40]

I'm sorry but that commenter basically just made up half that stuff. T-Mo doesn't have a prepaid data plan. AT&T does, but it's $20 for 100 megs of data.

And it's been confirmed to have only T-Mo 3g bands, so there is no way you're going to use VOIP with EDGE speeds with ATT.

"Active and old" google account. Really? What's a "google account" - you mean gmail? So what's the cutoff for that? Being in beta? Sounds ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is $199 for a brand new (rumored) SNAPDRAGON phone, with no subsidy? So google is going to take a couple hundred dollar loss on each phone?

The phone only costs ~$150 in materials so they would be making a profit by selling it for $199, not taking a loss.

 

[Pliablemoose]

While all the drama makes me pretty crazy, I want this phone, am psyched it'll work on TMobile's network.

I'm guessing it'll run around $499 unlocked, about $199 subsidized on TMobile.

 

[hanoverphist]

The phone only costs ~$150 in materials so they would be making a profit by selling it for $199, not taking a loss.

thats if you have zero dollars in advertising, shipping and the whole process of getting the phone out and in use. of course, we know that isnt true, and it likely will cost more than 49 bucks overall. you gotta remember the burden when trying to figure profit.

 

[destrekor]

While all the drama makes me pretty crazy, I want this phone, am psyched it'll work on TMobile's network.

I'm guessing it'll run around $499 unlocked, about $199 subsidized on TMobile.

Yep, it'll probably run $399/499 rooted and unlocked, sold by Google as the ADP3, and will sell for that same price without contract from T-Mobile, and likely somewhere between $199/250 on contract.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Glad someone understood what I was saying. UMTS, HSDPA, HSPA+, and LTE all use CDMA to control channel access while the term "GSM" is properly only applied to a specific implementation of TDMA technologies that peaked with EDGE and has been superseded.

DLeRium, EDGE kind of scooted into a technical inclusion in 3G because it was technically faster than GPRS which was billed as "2.5G". The fact is that EDGE is still TDMA (read: ancient) and is simply not in the same performance class as the other "3G" technologies with a theoretical max of only 1 mbit and actual sustained speeds of only around 300 kbit. In terms of actual consumer performance class, I probably should have granted EDGE "2.75G" status, but it's handily outclassed even by the next slowest 3G technology.

I understand. CDMA technologies are employed in UMTS, HSPA. EDGE from a speed perspective is really a 2G technology and also especially because of its TDMA-like characteristics such as voice/data handling. However, as defined by the ITU, EDGE actually resides in 3G for telephony. Partly this is because EDGE moved onto packet switching rather than relying on traditional time division. I suppose there is the issue of simultaneous data and voice, but this is a problem in EV-DO also.

I'm glad that UMTS does combine CDMA features into the core GSM network and that LTE will be be using CDMA access which we all know to be better. What's even more beneficial is that we can get a unified worldwide communications protocol. Thanks to the Qualcomm fiasco, we screwed ourselves in the past in the US but perhaps this will change. Unfortunately, separate frequencies from the rest of the world will still be a limiting factor.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I'm glad that UMTS does combine CDMA features into the core GSM network and that LTE will be be using CDMA access which we all know to be better. What's even more beneficial is that we can get a unified worldwide communications protocol. Thanks to the Qualcomm fiasco, we screwed ourselves in the past in the US but perhaps this will change. Unfortunately, separate frequencies from the rest of the world will still be a limiting factor.

I agree. It will be nice to see everyone on the same signalling protocol. The main issue that I have with GSM is that it was legislated into being the required protocol for most of Europe. That was fine in 1991 when GSM first launched commercially. However, when CDMA systems reached maturity in 1993/1994 and was launched commercially in 1995, it was clear that CDMA (IS-95) was a superior technology. Unfortunately, because GSM was backed by legislation, mobile providers in Europe were legally prevented from upgrading.

That's the main issue that I have with the original GSM. It was a good system when introduced (superior to Digital-AMPS), but because there was legislation in many European countries mandating its use, it held on for much longer than it should have. Thankfully it is finally being updated, but I do worry that there may be similar stagnation in the future.

ZV

 

[DivideBYZero]

I agree. It will be nice to see everyone on the same signalling protocol. The main issue that I have with GSM is that it was legislated into being the required protocol for most of Europe. That was fine in 1991 when GSM first launched commercially. However, when CDMA systems reached maturity in 1993/1994 and was launched commercially in 1995, it was clear that CDMA (IS-95) was a superior technology. Unfortunately, because GSM was backed by legislation, mobile providers in Europe were legally prevented from upgrading.

That's the main issue that I have with the original GSM. It was a good system when introduced (superior to Digital-AMPS), but because there was legislation in many European countries mandating its use, it held on for much longer than it should have. Thankfully it is finally being updated, but I do worry that there may be similar stagnation in the future.

ZV

No. Just NO. Wrong.

Americans that actually believe 'Europe' is some kind of Eastern Bloc unit where things like this are mandated by law need to apply for a passport and take a trip.

The European Union was born out of economic freedom and the Telecoms market here has been one of the most free and fierce on the planet. To state the opposite is laughable at best. Nobody 'has' to use GSM, but a system that allows for roaming and Subscriber Identity Modules fit's a diverse market very well. Combine that with handset availability then it would be suicide to have chosen another technology. Some did, they no longer exist.

In contrast the American market is in the dark ages, choked by only two major carriers and, until recently years, doggedly using technology unique to that continent.

/rant

 

[uli2000]

CDMA is an inferior and outdated technology, by 2011 Verizon will be moving to GSM and I would assume Sprint will eventually make the switch as well.

I travel quite a bit and there are very few places where I get no reception. Sometimes I don't get service in certain big buildings(like the interior parts of hospitals) but other than that I have never had a problem with signal.

Technology wise, CDMA is superior to 2g GSM. 3g GSM (WCDMA) and 4g GSM (LTE) have absolutly nothing in common with 2g GSM. In fact, both 3g and 4g GSM incorporate elements of CDMA.

 

[uli2000]

No. Just NO. Wrong.

Americans that actually believe 'Europe' is some kind of Eastern Bloc unit where things like this are mandated by law need to apply for a passport and take a trip.

The European Union was born out of economic freedom and the Telecoms market here has been one of the most free and fierce on the planet. To state the opposite is laughable at best. Nobody 'has' to use GSM, but a system that allows for roaming and Subscriber Identity Modules fit's a diverse market very well. Combine that with handset availability then it would be suicide to have chosen another technology. Some did, they no longer exist.

In contrast the American market is in the dark ages, choked by only two major carriers and, until recently years, doggedly using technology unique to that continent.

/rant

I thought one of the biggest reasons Europe and most of the rest of the world went GSM was not wanting to pay Qualcomm's exorberant licensing fees for CDMA and that GSM was an "open source" solution.

 

[vshah]

god damn, if only it had a real keyboard