- 603
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
This makes no sense. Apple makes hardware devices and software. They're not like Google that tries to delve into every area of technology. I'd half believe a story of Google wanting to be a mobile service before Apple.
Apple plans to crush carriers and offer direct mobile service, expert says (article)
- 8,818
- 4,296
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
If they do this google will buy T-Mobile.
- 93,966
- 33,000
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
i wish, lower prices, better phones.
hope this happens tomorrow, today...... NOW?
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
didn't at&t buy t-mobile under the table?
- 9,530
- 91
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2003
- 2,325
- 269
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
Yeah im an apple fanboy because i own an iphone -_-. I dont even own any apple products im calling it from the real _ point of view. I wouldnt even call you a fanboy you are just IGNORANT to technology. You say apple makes inferior products yet there products are always highly ranked and ALAWYS score high on benchmarks. And metro the reason for unerspeced phones? not even go on Verizon, Tmobile, At&t, and Sprint and you will see that there are plenty of cheap android phones.Originally Posted by an dee 51o
MJ, please don't talk about fanboy. You are the biggest Apple fanboy on this board, if I'm not mistaken
And I am HARDLY an Android fanboy. Apple basically pays my bills, and I'm likely to get an iPhone 5 along with the Galaxy S3. I'm just telling it like it is.
The reason "99% of androids arent cheap underspeced phones" is because companies like Metro now have Android. Which I think is awesome, because Apple is so damn snobby.
You think the reason Metro doesnt have iPhone is because they are snobby? You understand small carriers like Cellular South and other regional carriers also carry the iPhone officially, its is more of a money issue with Metro, If im not mistake apple requires a cut of the data fees. Do you research instead of making accusation you have already said A LOT of incorrect things that could have been avoided with simple fact checking.
- 537
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
lol at convos always going into iphone vs the entire android ecosystemOriginally Posted by 4318MichaelJohnson4318
Yeah im an apple fanboy because i own an iphone -_-. I dont even own any apple products im calling it from the real _ point of view. I wouldnt even call you a fanboy you are just IGNORANT to technology. You say apple makes inferior products yet there products are always highly ranked and ALAWYS score high on benchmarks. And metro the reason for unerspeced phones? not even go on Verizon, Tmobile, At&t, and Sprint and you will see that there are plenty of cheap android phones.Originally Posted by an dee 51o
MJ, please don't talk about fanboy. You are the biggest Apple fanboy on this board, if I'm not mistaken
And I am HARDLY an Android fanboy. Apple basically pays my bills, and I'm likely to get an iPhone 5 along with the Galaxy S3. I'm just telling it like it is.
The reason "99% of androids arent cheap underspeced phones" is because companies like Metro now have Android. Which I think is awesome, because Apple is so damn snobby.
You think the reason Metro doesnt have iPhone is because they are snobby? You understand small carriers like Cellular South and other regional carriers also carry the iPhone officially, its is more of a money issue with Metro, If im not mistake apple requires a cut of the data fees. Do you research instead of making accusation you have already said A LOT of incorrect things that could have been avoided with simple fact checking.
lets keep it simple, iphone vs. PICK ONE PHONE. in my opinion the two androids for this year is going to be galaxy and htc one series.
either way I like android, im sticking with android.
- 4,323
- 4,705
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
I'm sorry, but what?
Spoiler [+]
You can't compare Apple's success with consumer electronics to Google overtaking Microsoft in these type of contexts. You can't really compare Apple to Google at all. It's ignorant cats like you who go around pointing their fingers like they know what's what in the technology world that power the false perception that Apple is a powerhouse company. That couldn't be further from the truth. (Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc are shot-calling companies. Apple can sway things by making their products reflect the direction they want to go, but that's about it.)
The fact of the matter is that while Apple is a great company that has been wildly successful in the market of consumer electronics, they cannot touch Google at all, and any thought of them becoming a mobile service provider without using another corporation's infrastructure (like how Virgin Mobile uses Sprint's network) is at least half a decade away, and that's if they are already working on it. Even with the recently streamlined patent processing (Obama
) it would take years for Apple to get clearances for cell towers, decide on CDMA/GSM, etc. Especially if they wanted to enlist their past customers in their new service, which would have to cater to BOTH CDMA/GSM network technologies. Outside of the iPad, iPod, and iPhone (which, if you think about it, are all based on the same basic framework plus/minus some functionality) Apple really hasn't been all that successful. iTunes? It's solid. iMacs? They sell okay. AppleTV?
Apple sanctioned accessories?
Apple will live (and die) through iOS. Remember when Apple bought Adobe, only to kill flash on their own mobile platform? (Flash was Adobe's biggest product.) They don't make the best business moves, and whether you want to admit it or not, the iPhone as a social status symbol is the main reason why Apple hasn't gone by the wayside like RIM.
Google offers a plethora of services that Apple simply cannot offer at this stage in the game. Google is the fastest ISP in America right now. They have been working on their own operating system (ChromeOS) over the last 5 years. They own Youtube. They have the most comprehensive database of people who use the internet. They've literally mapped the entire world through Google Maps several times over. I mean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products just look. Google has also slowly begun to delve into Nuclear technology, but given the recent TEPCO incident they've been a lot more lowkey with it.
So, excuse me when I overlook the fact that iPads are being used in suburban schools and in meeting rooms. The fact of the matter is that when people log into the internet on their iPads, one of the first sites they are going to visit is Google.com. And if that isn't a website they use, Google is still providing ad service to the sites that they do use. Apple isn't comparable to Google because Apple is a monogamous corporation, and their stubbornness will be their downfall.
The fact of the matter is that while Apple is a great company that has been wildly successful in the market of consumer electronics, they cannot touch Google at all, and any thought of them becoming a mobile service provider without using another corporation's infrastructure (like how Virgin Mobile uses Sprint's network) is at least half a decade away, and that's if they are already working on it. Even with the recently streamlined patent processing (Obama
Google offers a plethora of services that Apple simply cannot offer at this stage in the game. Google is the fastest ISP in America right now. They have been working on their own operating system (ChromeOS) over the last 5 years. They own Youtube. They have the most comprehensive database of people who use the internet. They've literally mapped the entire world through Google Maps several times over. I mean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products just look. Google has also slowly begun to delve into Nuclear technology, but given the recent TEPCO incident they've been a lot more lowkey with it.
So, excuse me when I overlook the fact that iPads are being used in suburban schools and in meeting rooms. The fact of the matter is that when people log into the internet on their iPads, one of the first sites they are going to visit is Google.com. And if that isn't a website they use, Google is still providing ad service to the sites that they do use. Apple isn't comparable to Google because Apple is a monogamous corporation, and their stubbornness will be their downfall.
- 1,509
- 138
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
welp, my tolerance to read the drawn out back and forth apple vs google has reached his limit w/ the above block of text. im out.
(this wont happen)
(this wont happen)
gllahone84
Banned
- 11,727
- 1,912
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2011
Originally Posted by ninjahood
- 2,325
- 269
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
So you honestly read my post and got me saying Apple is going to do something to Google? All I did was respond to the DUMB comment about apple needs to stick to "consumer projects". CLEARLY oblivious that iPad is the ONLY tablet making any splashes in education in enterprises. Never did I even pay any mind to the original thread. So fall back and save your wiki research for another argument.Originally Posted by Yeah
I'm sorry, but what?
Spoiler [+]You can't compare Apple's success with consumer electronics to Google overtaking Microsoft in these type of contexts. You can't really compare Apple to Google at all. It's ignorant cats like you who go around pointing their fingers like they know what's what in the technology world that power the false perception that Apple is a powerhouse company. That couldn't be further from the truth. (Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc are shot-calling companies. Apple can sway things by making their products reflect the direction they want to go, but that's about it.)
The fact of the matter is that while Apple is a great company that has been wildly successful in the market of consumer electronics, they cannot touch Google at all, and any thought of them becoming a mobile service provider without using another corporation's infrastructure (like how Virgin Mobile uses Sprint's network) is at least half a decade away, and that's if they are already working on it. Even with the recently streamlined patent processing (Obama) it would take years for Apple to get clearances for cell towers, decide on CDMA/GSM, etc. Especially if they wanted to enlist their past customers in their new service, which would have to cater to BOTH CDMA/GSM network technologies. Outside of the iPad, iPod, and iPhone (which, if you think about it, are all based on the same basic framework plus/minus some functionality) Apple really hasn't been all that successful. iTunes? It's solid. iMacs? They sell okay. AppleTV?Apple sanctioned accessories?Apple will live (and die) through iOS. Remember when Apple bought Adobe, only to kill flash on their own mobile platform? (Flash was Adobe's biggest product.) They don't make the best business moves, and whether you want to admit it or not, the iPhone as a social status symbol is the main reason why Apple hasn't gone by the wayside like RIM.
Google offers a plethora of services that Apple simply cannot offer at this stage in the game. Google is the fastest ISP in America right now. They have been working on their own operating system (ChromeOS) over the last 5 years. They own Youtube. They have the most comprehensive database of people who use the internet. They've literally mapped the entire world through Google Maps several times over. I mean, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products just look. Google has also slowly begun to delve into Nuclear technology, but given the recent TEPCO incident they've been a lot more lowkey with it.
So, excuse me when I overlook the fact that iPads are being used in suburban schools and in meeting rooms. The fact of the matter is that when people log into the internet on their iPads, one of the first sites they are going to visit is Google.com. And if that isn't a website they use, Google is still providing ad service to the sites that they do use. Apple isn't comparable to Google because Apple is a monogamous corporation, and their stubbornness will be their downfall.
But apple bought adobe?
im sorry but what?
bring yall sensei AlchemistIQ im done with the pawns
b smooth 202
Banned
- 10,298
- 106
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
good...everything needs to be streamlined...
- 752
- 17
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
buy their shares now before they go up like gold.
- 7,626
- 442
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Originally Posted by FlipnKraut
Originally Posted by milestailsprowe
Actually I'm being serious. Google has the ability by just shutting down all their services to all apple devices. Lets see how good Apple products are without youtube, gmail, search and more.Originally Posted by NikeTalker23
Comments like these kill me..
Uhh you do realize that Google makes more money off their products on Apple than they do on their own phones right? Oh, you didn't?
Read this
http://www.iphoneincanada...than-its-android-phones/
Yea I actually did but thats just on phones VS overall computers.
Google would not go under because of this but they would hurt apple significantly if the I everything people couldn't use Google services.
- 6,150
- 508
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
Android phone + unlimited 4g + tethering is all I need for my iPad. While this seems really nice , tmobile has had my back in Los Angeles. I get great speeds here (normally 1Mbps-4Mbps ) so while I would cop a wireless plan if i did end my service with tmobile, it probably wouldn't happen anytime soon
- 6,150
- 508
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
For all you guys wondering where apple would get their spectrum from:
Spectrum abounds, but utilization is low
In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far these companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
All they would need to do is buy some. Or hit the next FTC auction. Then put up cell towers. With that huge cash reserve, I don't see that being a problem.
Spectrum abounds, but utilization is low
In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far these companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
All they would need to do is buy some. Or hit the next FTC auction. Then put up cell towers. With that huge cash reserve, I don't see that being a problem.
- 6,150
- 508
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
Nahh bro. Anti-trust laws, and the Feds wouldn't let it fall through. AT&T ended up paying tmobile $4B for the trouble thohttp://www.usatoday.com/t...mobile-merger/52076342/1
- 11,773
- 70
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
What did I stumble back into?
- 8,323
- 730
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
They make inferior products knowing it'll sell anyways and so they can come out with a "S" version a year later which is what the original should've been in the first place. Remember when the 4s was announced? People were HEATED. But low and behold, they still bought it.
Bought a Vaio for college (using it right now) and this thing is just done.
Bought a VAIO for college (using it right now) and this thing still kicks #+#.
http://store.sony.com/web...p;partNumber=VGNSZ430N/B
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,150
- 189,490
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
This will not end well.
- 10,459
- 8,935
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
sucks having to give up $4B just for troubles lol