[belfastdispatcher]

Thanks. I downloaded the most recent podcast, filesize 50.6Mb.
I used 7zip to compress the mp3, using the slowest, "ultra" compression setting and it was only able to reduce it by less than 4%

In your test, you were able to get 24% compression. Can anyone explain how RIM manages to do this?
Either RIM data compression is able to violate the laws information theory, or your test was somehow flawed.

Not only that, trough the BB browser you can download or stream the podcast.

[belfastdispatcher]

I've said this before, my wife roamed from UK to New York for a week on just 1.6mb of data. The phone was never turned off and wifi was never used, hundreds of bbms were sent and received, voice notes and a few photos and some uploaded to Facebook.

At the price of �8 per 1mb any other phone would have to be turned off or only used on wifi.

[nyplaya610]

Props to the OP, this thread has been educational. Does anyone know how RIM does their data compression?

[notfanboy]

Not only that, trough the BB browser you can download or stream the podcast.

So, any explanations on how RIM data compression was able to squeeze 24% off an mp3 file? Because if true this should be front Page news on all the tech sites!

[belfastdispatcher]

So, any explanations on how RIM data compression was able to squeeze 24% off an mp3 file? Because if true this should be front Page news on all the tech sites!

Magic, who cares, RIM does claim 4/1 compression for emails and 2/1 compression for browsing.

[notfanboy]

Magic, who cares, RIM does claim 4/1 compression for emails and 2/1 compression for browsing.

It's your claim that I'm questioning, not RIM's. My scientific curiosity is piqued. Did you just make those numbers up or can they be reproduced?

[mikeo007]

So, any explanations on how RIM data compression was able to squeeze 24% off an mp3 file? Because if true this should be front Page news on all the tech sites!

Wow, I think they should fire their entire marketing team. Who cares about BB10 or phones in general if you've got a technology like this available. They could license it and just roll in the piles of money they'd rake in. I can't even begin to imagine all of the possible uses for that kind of compression.

[belfastdispatcher]

Wow, I think they should fire their entire marketing team. Who cares about BB10 or phones in general if you've got a technology like this available. They could license it and just roll in the piles of money they'd rake in. I can't even begin to imagine all of the possible uses for that kind of compression.

Aren't we told time and time again the average consumer doesn't care about things like compression?

[Harry_III_UK]

So, I'm wondering...

If BB can compress data and therefore send less packets - that means that for a given amount of bandwidth there is less bandwidth used so more data that can be sent (because it is compressed).

Therefore, carriers would be able to squeeze more users onto their networks if all those users were using BB (there is more bandwidth to go around).

Or, carriers would be able to offer a better service if everyone used BB as the available bandwidth wouldn't be so busy with data traffic.

Or, carriers could just have a higher contention ratio and get more bang for their buck out of a part of the radio spectrum they would be using.

So - all this seems like either a win for the users or a win for the carriers.

So - why aren't carriers more aggressively pushing BB?

Is it down to the other agreements with RIM perhaps (maybe RIM don't offer as generous discounts on hardware as other manufacturers / or charge carriers more for BIS etc).

I understand a carrier wants you on their network so they'll sell any handset that gets users to lock into those 24 month contracts - but I would have still thought they would more actively push BB over other devices.

Or is my logic flawed?

Harry

[mikeo007]

Aren't we told time and time again the average consumer doesn't care about things like compression?

Read it again. I'm not talking about consumers, I'm talking about the big fish. Consumers don't generally license technology patents.

[mikeo007]

So, I'm wondering...

If BB can compress data and therefore send less packets - that means that for a given amount of bandwidth there is less bandwidth used so more data that can be sent (because it is compressed).

Therefore, carriers would be able to squeeze more users onto their networks if all those users were using BB (there is more bandwidth to go around).

Or, carriers would be able to offer a better service if everyone used BB as the available bandwidth wouldn't be so busy with data traffic.

Or, carriers could just have a higher contention ratio and get more bang for their buck out of a part of the radio spectrum they would be using.

So - all this seems like either a win for the users or a win for the carriers.

So - why aren't carriers more aggressively pushing BB?

Is it down to the other agreements with RIM perhaps (maybe RIM don't offer as generous discounts on hardware as other manufacturers / or charge carriers more for BIS etc).

I understand a carrier wants you on their network so they'll sell any handset that gets users to lock into those 24 month contracts - but I would have still thought they would more actively push BB over other devices.

Or is my logic flawed?

Harry

N/A carriers charge absurd amounts for data packages. If I can get by with a 500mb package on my Bold, but need a 1GB package on a non-Blackberry, which phone would the carrier prefer I use? The compression also comes at a price for the carriers since it's part of the NOC infrastructure.

[belfastdispatcher]

Read it again. I'm not talking about consumers, I'm talking about the big fish. Consumers don't generally license technology patents.

From 2010:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/18/rim-patent-app-will-have-you-barely-browsing-the-web-at-incredib/

[pantlesspenguin]

So, I'm wondering...

If BB can compress data and therefore send less packets - that means that for a given amount of bandwidth there is less bandwidth used so more data that can be sent (because it is compressed).

Therefore, carriers would be able to squeeze more users onto their networks if all those users were using BB (there is more bandwidth to go around).

Or, carriers would be able to offer a better service if everyone used BB as the available bandwidth wouldn't be so busy with data traffic.

Or, carriers could just have a higher contention ratio and get more bang for their buck out of a part of the radio spectrum they would be using.

So - all this seems like either a win for the users or a win for the carriers.

So - why aren't carriers more aggressively pushing BB?

Is it down to the other agreements with RIM perhaps (maybe RIM don't offer as generous discounts on hardware as other manufacturers / or charge carriers more for BIS etc).

I understand a carrier wants you on their network so they'll sell any handset that gets users to lock into those 24 month contracts - but I would have still thought they would more actively push BB over other devices.

Or is my logic flawed?

Harry

Simple answer - so carriers can still charge out the azz for overages. ETA: Also what Mike said.

ETA again: In the 4 months I was on Verizon, I was charged for overages twice. I had the same 2gb data as I did on T-Mo, only on T-Mo they just throttle you if you go over, and not charge for going over. On T-Mo, however, I only average about 1.2gb per month. There were Verizon services running in the background that I couldn't uninstall. So they were controlling the data that *I* was paying for. Not cool. During the times I was on my 9930 instead of my Rezound, those were the months I didn't get charged overages. Imagine that.

[mikeo007]

From 2010:

RIM patent app will have you barely browsing the web at incredible speeds -- Engadget

Did you quote me and then link a random article for some reason? What does it have to do with anything I said?

[notfanboy]

From 2010:

RIM patent app will have you barely browsing the web at incredible speeds -- Engadget

This says absolutely nothing about how the the magic 24% reduction in mp3 files is accomplished. Are you ducking the question? Did you make up those numbers, or can they be reproduced?

[belfastdispatcher]

This says absolutely nothing about how the the magic 24% reduction in mp3 files is accomplished. Are you ducking the question? Did you make up those numbers, or can they be reproduced?

I didn't make them up, we had this discussion over a year ago, some older members might remember, I don't have the time to reproduce it again now, maybe next week.

I'm in GPRS area this weekend anyway.

[belfastdispatcher]

From 2010:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/18/rim-patent-app-will-have-you-barely-browsing-the-web-at-incredib/

It explains some of RIM's compression tech.

[notfanboy]

I didn't make them up, we had this discussion over a year ago, some older members might remember, I don't have the time to reproduce it again now, maybe next week.

I'm in GPRS area this weekend anyway.

Too bad.

Can someone else give it a try?

[BennyX]

Skyfire browser does compression as well (even video, though quality is hit or miss there). Skyfire also supports Flash. Android version works on Playbook. Video playback is a $2 add-on, which also works on Playbook.

Opera does compression, too, with its Turbo feature. No version works on Playbook.

If you're using a web-based email like Gmail or something, through the browser, I'd imagine that gets compressed as well.
As with the native Playbook browser, if you turn off Javascript it helps speeds immensely.

So no, RIM is not the only company to provide compression.

[belfastdispatcher]

Skyfire browser does compression as well (even video, though quality is hit or miss there). Skyfire also supports Flash. Android version works on Playbook. Video playback is a $2 add-on, which also works on Playbook.

Opera does compression, too, with its Turbo feature. No version works on Playbook.

If you're using a web-based email like Gmail or something, through the browser, I'd imagine that gets compressed as well.
As with the native Playbook browser, if you turn off Javascript it helps speeds immensely.

So no, RIM is not the only company to provide compression.

You do realize those are third party browsers and we're not talking PlayBook anyway.

[Harry_III_UK]

There were Verizon services running in the background that I couldn't uninstall. So they were controlling the data that *I* was paying for. Not cool.

That REALLY sucks.

[sydsam]

So your opinion is that RIM does not do the same? Okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Can you please get some common sense into your thinking, and just look at where the money is?
On one side you have a mobile phone manufacturing company which offers compression services to it's clients:
1) As competitive advantage over other manufacturers.
2) Charges for it.

On the other you have a third party developer that offers compression services for free.

Which one of these two do you think is more likely to sell you data for profit? No need to read T&C here.

[sydsam]

I can only compare it with an iPhone, and the data consumption on that is huge. My bill as compared to when i was on bb, is up by 300%. But the data consumption difference is especially noticeable when go internationally. I have a Vodafone passport and all the other international calling and data roaming bolt ons that they offer. So in result I get something like 150MB of free roaming data per month.
This amount would last about two weeks on bb (emails and browsing). And about a day or two on iPhone.