| Author |
No edge support in SE phones |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
@goldenface:
Quote:
|
Also BTW, although profits have fallen - according to the lastest figures Sony Ericsson market share is still growing and in the last quarter it has taken the NUMBER 5 position from Siemens.
So you're the one talking Bollocks mate 
|
|
Depends how you put it.  in front of Siemens is more due to Siemens than to in my opinion. | |
|
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
@Super G I don't care about sales or position.
I just like to keep the record straight |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 14:45:25, dave_uk wrote:
Indeed, there are possibilities for them to be complementary technologies, but would you not agree that they are primarily in competition for the same market segment, and that operators who have already spent vast sums on 3G licences would be foolish to:
a) divert attention towards a technology that reduces the attractiveness of 3G to the end user.
b) invest in development of EDGE, where the money could better be spent supporting the development of 3G, which they are very much financially committed to.
I just think that although you have a point, it would be impractical for the operators to be thinking of implementing EDGE in markets where it is not already available in the current climate, as well as the fact that it would probably ultimately drive down the prices of data-intensive services for the consumer which the operators are relying on to recoup their costs.
|
|
As to point a), diverting attention is really funny. Operators (hopefully they will understand one day) must sell services, not a particular technology. The end user cares about availability of a service he/she is paying for not how this service is delivered to his/her handset. The operator can control exactly how this service is delivered to the user. Service discontinuity will hurt a lot on the "success" of 3G.
Regarding point b) some operators are doing that. Not all , look e.g. at TIM in Italy. |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
@Super G I agree with what you are saying but the mere phrase "3G" is the buzzword for 2005 and operators do not want consumers to think of anything else.
Vodafone are spending millions marketing its 3G Live portal. It uses the very words 3G in most if not all of its advertising. It certainly does not want to start offering an Edge Live service alongside that.
3G is a term that the operators want to stick in people minds.
It is supposed to be the next big thing - in Europe anyway. |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
@goldenface
Who said they would have to use EDGE Live! name? Surely they should not. They can use the same 3G Live! name and offer those services with WCDMA or if one day they have EDGE, EDGE.
The term "3G" would simply make some service differentiation in people's mind. Not actual technology. |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
@Super G Why would Voda want the extra cost of running a second extra Edge network? |
Gigs
Joined: Jan 19, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The planet Snibertron!
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 14:54:42, clank wrote:
Continuing with the thread dont forget se's offerings for asia-pacific...j200, j300, k300 and k500. 4 phones for a market they're not aiming at..hmm
|
|
Funny as another Asia Pacific member those models (albiet the F500i here) are going down VERY well.
Lets face it, those in India feel self persecuted by not releasing an edge phone, if you take offense at that I'm sorry but EVERY edge thread I'd ever seen has been along the same lines of is ignoring me!
Why not band together and complain to your operators that they lack handsets, if anything has been shown by its that they're more than willing to work with operators to provide handsets in a market. V800 and D750 are clear examples if you ask me.
Now this is only opinion, can't really say its informed, but it looks to be a good guess. are developing what they feel they will be strong in, 3G is their focus right now and so thats where their attention is. Edge unfortunately is not of world wide importance, even less so in countries where dataplans are not all you can eat or reasonably priced.
Edge here would mean I end up paying MORE, FASTER. Yes i like that idea ALOT.
I would imagine the australian market to be similar too, that 3g will be the main focus there. |
Supa_Fly
Joined: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Toronto, Ontario
PM, WWW
|
simple. Quality of service. The oh and ah of 3G doesnt do much if your walking and video conferencing or a new feature leaving a video message and all of a sudden ur handed off 2 a gprs tower. There goes the pleasure of 3g. With edge implemented video calls and data surfing can still be done quite well. Im sure some of you experienced gprs handoffs. |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
Most European mobile operators have spent billions on 3G/UMTS and it would be economic suicide for them to consider anything else. Plain and simple.
considers the European market its main 'bread basket' so that is where it is focussed.
This is not to say it is not keeping its eye elsewhere.
If the Indian market is demanding a high percentage of EDGE enabled phones then I am sure will act and provide them. Until then, in Europe, UMTS is where it believes its future lays.
@Prom1. Tp be honest, you don't know how good the 3G network will be in the near future. It won't be long before it will be just as reliable as GSM. |
orange
Joined: Mar 13, 2002
Posts: 397
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 12:48:00, AYA wrote:
@orange: Again, the answer has been given a long time ago, as Scots has mentioned... We "lesser" mortals usually have no idea of whatz going on behind the scenes.
|
|
And what makes this Scots such an übergeek that he can be raised above, as you call, "lesser" mortals?
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 14:31, scotsboyuk wrote:
EDGE and WCDMA are very much competing technologies from the networks' point of view.
|
|
How? Does the investment to the other one make them competing technologies, as you seem imply? From operators point of view, both are just channels for the revenue. The other one is extremely costly and the other one is pretty cheap to build. You're still not explaining why would it hurt operators (or SE) to implement both? There are a lot of operators which have both and more to come. Are those operators stupid because they have implemented, as you say, competing technologies? Maybe someone should've told them not to do that...
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 16:31, goldenface wrote:
First of all, even if SE did introduce Edge enable phones in Europe then the Operators still probably wouldn't take them up as they have invested millions in 3G networks and licences.
|
|
They take EDGE phones from other vendors, why would SE be an exception on this?
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 16:31, goldenface wrote:
As has already been posted, SE is commited to 3G because it is superior to Edge and that is where it predicts its future lays.
|
|
Would it be less superior if they would implement both EDGE and WCDMA to the device?
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 15:45, dave_uk wrote:
b) invest in development of EDGE, where the money could better be spent supporting the development of 3G, which they are very much financially committed to.
|
|
The money shouldn't be an issue here, as EDGE is basically only a software update to the existing GPRS network. 3G network requires also new infrastructure to be build and that makes it expensive along with the licensees. EDGE won't need these and thus it's financially peanuts compared to WCDMA.
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 16:31, goldenface wrote:
@Super G Why would Voda want the extra cost of running a second extra Edge network?
|
|
As I explained above, you don't need any extra network for EDGE. It runs on existing GSM/GPRS networks. It just uses a different modulation and coding scheme, which is handled via software.
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 16:31, goldenface wrote:
Most European mobile operators have spent billions on 3G/UMTS and it would be economic suicide for them to consider anything else. Plain and simple.
|
|
And by saying this a lot of European operators, who have already implemented both EDGE and WCDMA or are planning to do so, will end up to bankruptcy. Maybe you should too start sending e-mail to them by saying how stupid they are by doing so...  |
Super G
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: France
PM |
@goldenface
Reliability is not the question here. Coverage is. I believe that nationwide 3G coverage in UK is pure utopia.
I'm not saying Vodafone should deploy EDGE (well, I think they should), but they must overcome severe problems of service discontinuity when having intersystem change. Videocall continuity here is the very problem (video call being THE marketed service of 3G... uuuuhh). At least I hope they have some fallback between video and voice up&running (which would be some proprietary solution), else, bye bye.
If service continuity does not exist between GSM/EDGE and 3G in an operator's network having both 3G and GSM there is absolutely no future for 3G because when out of 3G coverage, the service drops. 3G would merely be a hotspot technology. Not quite worth the fuss of it.
Anyway, believe me Vodafone knows this (thats also why they also only offered 3G data cards initially, because intersystem change works well for plain packet data with low delay requirements) |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 16:31, goldenface wrote:
As has already been posted, SE is commited to 3G because it is superior to Edge and that is where it predicts its future lays.
|
|
Would it be less superior if they would implement both EDGE and WCDMA to the device?
@Orange. I was referreing to the aspects of the technology, not the devices
So what would be the point of UMTS in Europe if Edge is so ready to be implemented?
If billions have been paid out for these 3G licences then they would be wise to recoup this money by promoting 3G otherwise they have wasted an awful lot of money.
Vodafone must think its current 3G network is good enough or else it wouldn't be promoting it so hard.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2005-05-11 09:56 ] |
orange
Joined: Mar 13, 2002
Posts: 397
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-11 10:55:50, goldenface wrote:
@Orange. I was referreing to the aspects of the technology, not the devices
|
|
Same thing from technology point of view: Would the operator/network be less superior, if it has both EDGE and WCDMA implemented?
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-11 10:55:50, goldenface wrote:
So what would be the point of UMTS in Europe if Edge is so ready to be implemented?
|
|
As I explained earlier, these two technologies are not competing, but complementary. |
OluYom
Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Nigeria
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-11 09:52:33, orange wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-10 12:48:00, AYA wrote:
@orange: Again, the answer has been given a long time ago, as Scots has mentioned... We "lesser" mortals usually have no idea of whatz going on behind the scenes.
|
|
And what makes this Scots such an übergeek that he can be raised above, as you call, "lesser" mortals?
|
|
Not Scots, old boy - read the post again. Seems like you're feeling a little grumpy 
PS: I used to be known as AYA |
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
@Orange. UMTS/WCDMA is 4 times faster than EDGE, so in my eyes it is far superior.
So if wants to commit to 3G in Europe then good on them. They are showing they want to lead the way, which can't be a bad thing.
Also, although Edge can utilise existing base stations it DOES cost money in implement. You cant just give people handsets and the Edge speeds are already there. It has to be inplemented, managed and the handsets have to be promoted.
This is extra finance spent implementing something which is already inferior to 3G in terms of what the end user receives. Slower speeds.
Yes we all know 3G coverage is still patchy, just like GSM coverage was a nearly decade ago. But at the end of the day the consumer will receive better quality, quicker download/upload speeds giving rise to more powerful and a wider array of services and applications and more money for the operators.
The end results of this great push for 3G should be well worth the wait.
I understand what you are saying about the two technologies being complimentary, but from a politcal point of view I can see why would want to commit to 3G.
Whether this is right or wrong is not for us to judge as we do not now what their exact strategy is.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2005-05-11 11:04 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2005-05-10 17:21
