31–38 of 38 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brilliantly put. I see some tech bloggers go through "specs" of speed, only to forget the data cap. If money is not an issue, then maybe, but most people usage over the cap will truly bite.
Sprint has no data cap...
But I thought Samsung didn't innovate?
Well, if you read the article, it's not actually a Samsung thing. This is university research that was partially funded by a grant from Samsung among others.
We might as well drop the whole ?G classification. Since the US carriers started branding stuff 4G that wasn't anywhere close to spec its been a free for all. Marketing aside, the tech might have merit in its own right though. I think the Ka band isn't available for use in my country though...
4G actually means something, it's just not enforceable . The trouble is, the trademark was not acquired in time before it became a "generic term" which means anyone can call anything 4G.
So? Its still entirely dead. More than that...they falsely claimed 4G and made millions off it. Yes its still means something from a technical point of view, but the concept in its true form is dead to the world - though very profitable.
>the trademark was not acquired in time
How do you propose trademarking a two character term that refers to a multiple of the gravitational constant? (It doesn't but in a courtroom many things are possible...)
We might as well drop the whole ?G classification. Since the US carriers started branding stuff 4G that wasn't anywhere close to spec its been a free for all. Marketing aside, the tech might have merit in its own right though. I think the Ka band isn't available for use in my country though...
Even people who should "know better" were fooled by AT&T claims of being 4G on the iPhone 4s: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-57408432-266/is-the-at-t-i...
As for the article linked - I wouldn't even call that "fooled by". That implies that there was a plausible case & the journalist was deceived via some active plot. If the reporter had done even vague research as to what 4G is (the topic of his article [lol]) then he/she would have smelled a rat. That to me is a straight up failure as a journalist, rather than "fooled by".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4G actually means something, it's just not enforceable . The trouble is, the trademark was not acquired in time before it became a "generic term" which means anyone can call anything 4G.
>4G actually means something, it's just not enforceable. So? Its still entirely dead. More than that...they falsely claimed 4G and made millions off it. Yes its still means something from a technical point of view, but the concept in its true form is dead to the world - though very profitable. >the trademark was not acquired in time How do you propose trademarking a two character term that refers to a multiple of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even people who should "know better" were fooled by AT&T claims of being 4G on the iPhone 4s: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-57408432-266/is-the-at-t-i...
Not to judge the Americans too harshly, but it seems to invariably be American companies who spin this bullsht. In other countries the carriers at least have the decency to call it LTE (with 4G sometimes mentioned in brackets). As for the article linked - I wouldn't even call that "fooled by". That implies that there was a plausible case & the journalist was deceived via some active plot. If the reporter had done eve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention, drain their battery at 10 times the speed.
They said that about 4G and about higher screen resolutions, and about higher display dimensions. They will innovate.