1. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    A couple of very good articles on the subject - they answer some questions, add some thoughts & give you an idea as to why WiFi has not been widespread on CDMA.

    WiFi takes a seat at the cellular table - FierceBroadbandWireless*

    Will WiFi Rule the Wireless Web? | AnalystXpress - the Juniper Research Blog

    These are people who know what they are talking about - it isn't a bunch of kids on BGR or some other fansite.

    Please keep the comments based on the article and no flames, baseless accusations or debates on the merits of WiFi. Use search to find any one of hundreds of thread here if you can't help yourself in this regard.

    In other words, intelligent conversation on the articles themselves. No WiFi Fifis need respond.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-29-09 01:26 AM
  2. ericsmcdonald's Avatar
    A couple of very good articles on the subject - they answer some questions, add some thoughts & give you an idea as to why WiFi has not been widespread on CDMA.

    In other words, intelligent conversation on the articles themselves. No WiFi Fifis need respond.
    Nice insight on the WiFi. But, my question Twins, is why do some manufacturers have no problem including WiFi while RIM seems to have trouble including it? The article explains why WiFi was slow to become "mainstream" with CDMA but it doesn't really address the technological difficulties with putting together a WiFi-enabled CDMA Blackberry.

    I ask because this is Crackberry after all
    07-29-09 01:37 AM
  3. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    As is rapidly becoming apparent, it is the chips, as well as battery life. Samsung uses their own chips in their smartphones and has been fairly consistent in offering WiFi. HTC has made a few attempts, but those devices were chided for poor battery life.

    The carriers' culpability has been mostly in not demanding WiFi. While Qualcomm claims they have seen WiFi as a complimentary technology, they also allude to little demand from manufacturers, who in turn point to little demand from carriers. Both manufacturers & carriers in turn look at their bottom lines and see their sales rise without it.

    GSM is very bandwidth limited and GSM carriers are happy to offload operations from their networks. CDMA doesn't suffer from this. Still, we've seen little ploys, like from T-Mobile, where you are required to pay for WiFi access on a number of devices.

    Regardless of demands and sales, CDMA is harder on batteries than is GSM. The security safeguards, fully digital processing and constant data connectivity contribute to this. The linked articles mention this issue. Take a look at the CDMA HTCs from years past. Turn on the WiFi on a XV6800 and your battery is red in less than an hour. Imagine the tech support calls and customer dissatisfaction, from both the power users, as well as the guy who didn't know better & left WiFi on. The 6800 wasn't exactly a sales champ. Even though better, the Samsungs see a huge number of complaints on battery life.

    The articles mention power connections at wireless hotspots, but who wants to carry around a charger? If I have to do that, I might as well carry a netbook of laptop.

    GSM phones see battery problems, too. But take the WiFi battery life of a GSM device and you can halve that with a CDMA model. Turn on the WiFi on an HTC Tilt and you'll notice it runs about twice as long as the very similar XV6800 - but neither is anything to write home about. Battery life is a big sticking point with RIM, as well as with carriers.

    If the CDMA carriers had demanded WiFi, I am sure we'd have seen WiFi sooner. Some will blame VZW & Sprint for not demanding it, but I can't blame them. They didn't need the network relief and they didn't want the support calls, so they did not demand WiFi. But they didn't block it, as witnessed by the various Samsung & HTC offerings. There is little or no profit in the devices, so adding extra device cost, reduced battery life & increased costs was not high on their wish lists. If the phone makers demanded it, we also might have seen WiFi sooner, but RIM probably looked at it the same way ias the carriers n not demanding WiFi from CDMA chip makers. No demand from phone makers meant that Qualcomm didn't forge ahead.

    Don't forget that Samsung could buy RIM without even blinking. They are a manufacturing powerhouse that doesn't need to rely on anyone for any component in their phones. RIM has to buy nearly every component in a BlackBerry & assmbles these into the final product. Samsung sometimes will make things just to show they can, while RIM doesn't have that luxury. They have to build based on profit, from the ground up. A company like Samsung, for example, does some things for name recognition. I've heard internal rumors that even at full retail, the upcoming Omnia 2 is less than cost - mostly because of the screen technology and processor. But their attitude is that if you like your Samsung phone, you're more likely to buy a Samsung TV, microwave oven or flat panel for your computer. BlackBerry is big in North America. Worldwide, Samsung crushes them. For trends, look to Samsung first & BlackBerry last, because RIM is now set into an eternal catch up mode. Nokia, LG & Apple have things first. RIM just doesn't have the muscle of the big guys in the industry.

    The WiFi issue not being on CDMA BlackBerrys is a complex one, with a lot of factors to consider. It wasn't all rosy with GSM devices either, as witnessed on Curve & Pearl. RIM was unable to create either with both GPS & WiFi. It was one or the other. It wasn't until the Bold/Curve2 when they were able to offer both. Now they are supposedly working on the CDMA side, which may be moot with the upcoming LTE networks.

    And, based on the VZW LTE footprint & structure penetration, it may also be an unnecessary technology for anyone in the US. Not an argument pro or con, mind you - just my forecast.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-29-09 01:35 PM
  4. cdaiscool's Avatar
    While right now, I sort of wish I had Wi-Fi as an option for when I'm at work and can't get signal out, with the LTE you're right - it's going to be a moot point. But all I REALLY have to say is....

    Oh man. I hope you didn't write that ALL from your phone. At once, anyways. Wow. Need some ice for those thumbs? Perhaps a little nitrogen, liquid-style?

    +2
    07-29-09 08:36 PM
  5. ericsmcdonald's Avatar
    And, based on the VZW LTE footprint & structure penetration, it may also be an unnecessary technology for anyone in the US. Not an argument pro or con, mind you - just my forecast.
    Thanks for the answers. One more question, sorry for being a little off-topic. So WiFi is a power hog. How power hungry are the LTE chips going to be in comparison to WiFi, CDMA, GSM, and WiMax?
    07-30-09 07:23 AM
  6. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    I never saw the lack of wifi with such malitious eyes although I did view it with a critical one. I think the articles are good and I think the reasonings are all complex and without any one thing governing CDMA carriers decisions against it. However, as complex as it is, revenue is also a governing factor that one cannot deny. The article stated that carriers ask, "so whats in it for me?" And while that may just be something a carrier has the right to ask, I think it also limits progress in the technological age because revenue will always govern what we get to have and use as consumers. A necessary evil? Maybe. But in this case, the only party I see that would have an interest in making handsets feature rich is the manufacturer. And in this case for RIM, their reasons for not embracing it for CDMA is humble in nature, where as for the carrier, it is not so clear.
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 08-03-09 at 11:51 PM.
    07-30-09 08:07 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD