This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

iPhone/other smart phone questions

1121315171834

Comments

  • If you are on AT&T and want to bail or upgrade phones without paying an early termination fee, now is your chance!

    http://smartphones.wonderhowto.com/how-to/get-out-your-at-t-contract-early-without-early-termination-fee-etf-0147120/
  • On my Nexus 4... How do I turn off USB mode for file transfer?

    Sometimes I plug it into a work computer's USB port for power and when I do it goes into USB mode for file transfers. I do not want that. I want it to only take power over the USB and not function as a thumb drive.

    The only option I can find is a choice between full drive access and limited camera only access.
  • So... Presidential veto of import ban on some apple products...
  • edited August 2013
    BBC's article has a good amount of information:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23566422

    This would have ended up in Samsung being able to really put the screws to other companies as well. But that's what the patent system has become, so it is kinda protectionist.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • edited August 2013
    I think the veto was wrong. Apple came late to the cell phone party and didn't want to pay the entry fee. Legacy players built the tech and pretty much cross license everything. The legacy players offered to let apple in under the same terms as everyone else but apple chose to use the tech and not pay for it.

    Supposedly the veto was meant to fight against patent hold ups but the apple case is a reverse hold up, something MS is also guilty of.

    I am more worried about the long term impact on standards than any short term impact on apple or Samsung.

    If Apple wants to use the argument that the patent in question is of little value compared to the price then they can just not use the tech or create their own method to do the same thing. If the tech is so trivial than why are they using it? Further wasn't this particular patent found to be not essential to the standard?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • I really need to buy a new smartphone mine, the one I'm running is almost 3 - 4 years old.

    I've been on Android mostly and bought HTC devices before this. My brother buys Samsungs mostly after trialling them, I dislike the Touchwiz skin.

    My problem is that all the phones I want are US exclusives such as the Samsung Galaxy S4 - Google Play Edition, HTC One - Google Play Edition or Moto X. LG G2 likely to also get a GPE.

    At the international level that leaves me choosing between HTC One or the Samsung Galaxy S4 for a 4G phone

    I know I can root and load the GPE roms but there is no over the air updates along this path and using the GPE rom reduces the quality of the HTC One camera.

    Should I go for the cheaper Samsung Galaxy S4 and just load vanilla 4.3 or get the more premium HTC One and keep it stock with Sense 5 skin?

    Am I not seeing any options which I should be?

    If you guys could share your knowledge and opinions on current Android handsets that would be great especially since you probably have hands on experience with current generation handsets.

    (I'm buying outright so carrier isn't a problem).
  • Why are they US only? Are you talking sold in US only or work in US only?
  • Why are they US only? Are you talking sold in US only or work in US only?
    Also, are you international? I'm assuming so, but I just want to be clear.
  • Just get the HTC One Google Play Edition, I am eyeing that for my next phone.
  • edited August 2013
    I think the veto was wrong. Apple came late to the cell phone party and didn't want to pay the entry fee. Legacy players built the tech and pretty much cross license everything. The legacy players offered to let apple in under the same terms as everyone else but apple chose to use the tech and not pay for it.
    Actually, reading post-ruling analysis, that may not be the case. Reading between the lines of the various rulings, here is what went down:

    Samsung: Hey, Apple, you're using some of our standards-essential patents without appropriate licensing!

    Apple: Oh, sorry about that. We're cool with paying licensing on FRAND (Free, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory -- AKA they are used in standards so the rules for what you're allowed to do to license them become very strict) patents. How about we give you this, this, and this in exchange for letting us use those patents.

    Samsung: Uh, no, we don't want that. How about instead you give us licenses to your non-FRAND patents and then we'll call it even.

    Apple: I think you don't understand what FRAND means. We are not giving you licenses to our non-FRAND patents.

    Samsung: Too bad. Give us licenses to your non-FRAND patents or we sue.

    Apple: GTFO!

    So essentially, Samsung was trying to use the ITC to blackmail Apple into licensing certain non-FRAND patents and Apple called their bluff.

    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/05/apple-samsung-itc-pinkert/
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • Most of the patents involved are ridiculous in the first place, IMHO.
  • edited August 2013
    My understanding is that Samsung held up their end of the FRAND rules but Apple refused all offers and instead only offered insulting counter offers. The ITC investigation found that this particular patent issue was a case of reverse holdup.

    Apple also argued that the patent in question was not essential to the 3G standard.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130806152107849

    How long before foreign countries ignore American company drug patents and start producing generics based on patented drugs? According to the Veto it was based not on the facts found by the ITC but public policy and economic policy. So how long before other countries follow suit and ignore patents for the same reasons?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • Just get the HTC One Google Play Edition, I am eyeing that for my next phone.
    I did this with my Droid Incredible before HTC did it for you. HTC hardware plus vanilla Android is a tough combination to beat.
  • My understanding is that Samsung held up their end of the FRAND rules but Apple refused all offers and instead only offered insulting counter offers. The ITC investigation found that this particular patent issue was a case of reverse holdup.

    Apple also argued that the patent in question was not essential to the 3G standard.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130806152107849

    How long before foreign countries ignore American company drug patents and start producing generics based on patented drugs? According to the Veto it was based not on the facts found by the ITC but public policy and economic policy. So how long before other countries follow suit and ignore patents for the same reasons?
    Part of the problem is that we really don't know what the offers and counter offers were. Some people are saying that Samsung's offer was "drop all suits against us and license us some of your non-FRAND patents," which could be interpreted as not really FRAND. Second, we don't know what Apple's offers were either. As far as I know, all these offers and counter-offers were redacted, so it's a big question mark. However, it is known that the ITC dissenter for the original case (admittedly, not the other members of the panel) did explicitly state that Samsung's conditions were not up to snuff with respect to FRAND.

    Also, I find it suspicious that Groklaw, despite usually doing good work overall, didn't actually cite where Apple claimed the '348 patent wasn't essential. They also have a notorious anti-Apple bias for various reasons.
  • How long before foreign countries ignore American company drug patents and start producing generics based on patented drugs? According to the Veto it was based not on the facts found by the ITC but public policy and economic policy. So how long before other countries follow suit and ignore patents for the same reasons?
    Pretty sure a lot of foreign countries actually do.
  • Why are they US only? Are you talking sold in US only or work in US only?
    Also, are you international? I'm assuming so, but I just want to be clear.
    Yeah sorry, I'm in Australia and these phones I described I was craving are sold in the US market only. All the phones work in Australia because they cover the entire spectrum used by the carriers in Asia, Europe, NA and Australia.

    Google Play Edition - I don't understand why it's a US exclusive to have flagship phones not sold internationally but kept as US exclusives however I can understand why Moto X is US only.
  • Google Play Edition - I don't understand why it's a US exclusive to have flagship phones not sold internationally but kept as US exclusives however I can understand why Moto X is US only.
    Who knows what the various international trade/regulation/tariff/shipping/etc. laws are like. That said, my sister almost bought a Google Play Edition phone while she was visiting from Ireland.
  • Most of the patents involved are ridiculous in the first place, IMHO.
    Yep!!
  • I regret not looking at what phones were available in Australia. I just cared about the service, and didn't think to check the hardware.
  • If Apple wants to use the argument that the patent in question is of little value compared to the price then they can just not use the tech or create their own method to do the same thing. If the tech is so trivial than why are they using it? Further wasn't this particular patent found to be not essential to the standard?
    Proper development and testing of even a "trivial" method like that patent can cost a few hundred thousand dollars in equipment and work-hours, and the bigger problem with these kinds of patents is that even with home-grown software the patent may be broad enough to cover that and be "infringing" anyways. Trying to circumvent the patent would probably require a complicated, expensive, and much less reliable workaround.
  • edited August 2013
    Who knows what the various international trade/regulation/tariff/shipping/etc. laws are like. That said, my sister almost bought a Google Play Edition phone while she was visiting from Ireland.
    All the same phones in the US are available in Australia (except the Moto X).
    Usually we also get access to the hardware a little earlier as well especially all the Korean and Chinese brands because of our geographical location and I can buy them early unlocked from Hong Kong.

    Just having vanilla Android seems to be a US Play store exclusive i.e. I can buy a Nexus 4 from the Play store but when I try to buy an HTC One or Samsung Galaxy S4 (vanilla versions), I get a message saying it is not for my region.

    If I was in your sisters position of visiting the US I would definitely have bought a Google Play Edition phone just to get the nexus like experience with 4G.
    Post edited by sK0pe on
  • This thread reminded me that my phone is coming up for an upgrade and Verizon still refuses to sell the Nexus. Fuck those guys.
  • This thread reminded me that my phone is coming up for an upgrade and Verizon still refuses to sell the Nexus. Fuck those guys.
    The Nexus 4 is not available on CDMA networks. It is a GSM only phone.

  • edited August 2013
    This thread reminded me that my phone is coming up for an upgrade and Verizon still refuses to sell the Nexus. Fuck those guys.
    The Nexus 4 is not available on CDMA networks. It is a GSM only phone.
    Yup, basically they never sold enough Sprint and Verizon Nexi to justify the development costs of the CDMA radio phone. Also Verizon is a dick about updates and they didn't want to deal with it anymore.

    Post edited by George Patches on
  • Yup, basically they never sold enough Sprint and Verizon Nexi to justify the development costs of the CDMA radio phone. Also Verizon is a dick about updates and they didn't want to deal with it anymore.
    Could it also be that because it was made to be an international release and the larger markets internationally use GSM over CDMA?

    Why do most people in the US still use carrier branded phones rather than buying handsets outright?

    Most people in Australia do it because they don't understand that it is the cheaper option which gives the consumer the best ability to choose which carrier is giving the best deal for the lowest price. They are usually under the misconception that it is much cheaper to buy a phone on a plan.
  • In short, history.

    Until the breakup of the Bell system in the early 80's you couldn't even use a second party phone in your home. All telco equipment was leased from the telco.

    In the early days of cell phones the phones cost a lot and were not worth buying from a customer point of view. Tech did not change that fast etc...

    Carriers bundle the cost of the phone (subsidy) into the cost of the service. Until prepaid started becoming the rage a few years back there was never a financial incentive to buying a phone outright because the service charge includes the price of a phone.

    Until the major carriers divorce the subsidy from the monthly service charge it will not make economical sense for people to buy their own phones.

    For example, if I buy an iPhone and use AT&T service I pay the same monthly service fee as someone who gets the same phone 'free' from AT&T. Why but the phone?

  • For example, if I buy an iPhone and use AT&T service I pay the same monthly service fee as someone who gets the same phone 'free' from AT&T. Why but the phone?
    Wow that is stupid crazy. Essentially a very strangled market.

    There are many different carrier companies in Australia who pay to use bands owned by 2 separate companies, then all the smaller companies offer phones on plans or if they are also an Internet Service Provider will roll it up with a land line and / or internet plan etc.

    The 2 companies that actually own the bandwith (Telstra and Optus) just bulldoze forth with large client bases from people staying with the companies through name and being larger corporations more than anything else. There a few representatives of international telco's with branches in Australia and they make up the high mid tier, then mid and low is made up by budget and ISP's.

    I am seemingly spoiled for choice as far as service goes.
  • edited August 2013
    For example, if I buy an iPhone and use AT&T service I pay the same monthly service fee as someone who gets the same phone 'free' from AT&T. Why but the phone?
    While this is still true for Verizon, I just switched to prepaid AT&T and it's pretty reasonable. $60 for unlimited talk and text with 2GB of data.
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • Are you using a smartphone? They offered an unlimited everything prepaid for $50 but only for feature phones. Let me know what plan you use because I would like to switch from T-Mobile due to service availability.
Sign In or Register to comment.