10-14-09 11:09 PM
36 12
tools
  1. Sotampagator's Avatar
    Of course, we know typically the CDMA stuff lags GSM by quite a bit. For instance, my wife got the 8900 Curve in June with T-Mobile and the phone won't be out until Spring, 2010 for CDMA phones. The Essex, or rumored Tour 2, which is very similar, is rumored in the same timeframe. What explains the delays? Is it because there are less CDMA providers or is it because of some technological weakness of the CDMA?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-11-09 06:13 PM
  2. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    Omnia, Tour, Storm, Imagio - all CDMA first. TP2 was somewhat simultaneous. T-Mobile got 8900, because they were neglected in the Bold/Tour/Storm releases.

    How many BlackBerrys does VZW have, compared with AT&T or T-Mobile? How many should they carry? They are already top-heavy in BlackBerry models, with eight. Non-BlackBerry smartphones are at eleven on VZW. Remember that BlackBerry is less than 20% of the smartphone market, yet they have 42% of VZW's smartphone lineup.

    If you look at the overall picture, instead of at single models, you will see that CDMA is not neglected.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-11-09 06:32 PM
  3. Sotampagator's Avatar
    Twins-

    I appreciate your insight, but, with the exception of the Storm, whcih was clearly a defensive move to ward off losses due to the iphone/ATT, you can't really say with a straight face that the CDMA stuff doesn't significantly lag the GSM stuff. The Tour runs the same type of technology/specs as the Bold and was almost a year late. I've been through this on at least 3 generations of BBs and the GSM is almost always a year ahead. The question is why?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-11-09 06:38 PM
  4. leskchan's Avatar
    It has to do with mass production. CDMA is limited to USA, South Korea, and a handful of countries. While the GSM phones has a bigger market. That's why iPhone went with AT&T GSM.

    Ounce for ounce, CDMA is a better technology.
    10-11-09 06:40 PM
  5. Champer's Avatar
    It has to do with mass production. CDMA is limited to USA, South Korea, and a handful of countries. While the GSM phones has a bigger market. That's why iPhone went with AT&T GSM.

    Ounce for ounce, CDMA is a better technology.
    Not sure I agree. I have always used CDMA so I am hardly the most unbiased observer, but I would certainly think GSM has the edge with data+voice concurrently. What does CDMA offer that GSM doesn't, as a technology - not related to carriers.
    10-11-09 06:48 PM
  6. leskchan's Avatar
    You have to seach back to 1995 or so when Qualcomm (an USA company) developed the CDMA technology. Fear of its world -wide adoptiion, Nokia and other European manufacturers quickly modify it into GSM for deployment in Europe and Asia.

    It's like Beta vs VHS and BlueRay vs HDDVD.
    10-11-09 07:02 PM
  7. bessemercityburgess's Avatar
    Good stuff
    10-11-09 09:25 PM
  8. Yoni415's Avatar
    The essex (Tour 2) is coming out for cdma first if not exclusively
    10-11-09 09:28 PM
  9. leskchan's Avatar
    The Tour and Tour 2 is a CDMA and GSM quad band world phone. There is one hardware to build. that's why.

    There is Sprint version and Verizon version, main difference is locking out each other. But you can use this on any USA GSM carrier.

    Some Tour users has two numbers, one on Sprint and another on GSM.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-11-09 09:36 PM
  10. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    CDMA is much more secure, uses available bandwidth more efficiently & completely, and has lower emissions.

    GSM is a technology that has its roots in the early 20th century. CDMA was a military theory until the last half of the 20th century & not released until the mid-1990s.

    CDMA's strongholds have been rich technology-driven areas where privacy has been valued. Places like North America & much of the Orient - places like Japan, the Koreas & even China - thanks to Hong Kong. GSM has been strong in poor countries, often Socialist in nature, where the government often wanted to keep tabs on people.

    CDMA handles simultaneous voice & data quite well it was in the implementation of EVDO that made simultaneous operation a reality. EVDV was stillborn because of the cost of the radios - necessitated because of the needs of reliable mobile operation. The algorithms needed to process the secure signals in a mobile environment took extra hardware. Then there is the issue of EVDV being basically incompatible with 1900MHz PCS, like Sprint uses & is licensed for, pretty much took it out of the race. If VZW moved to EVDV, there might have been anti-trust issues to contend with. At the very least, it would hve eliminated a huge source of revenue in roaming agreements.

    Since the present GSM technologies are rigidly channeled & do not have the high reliability & QoS standards desired by CDMA carriers, running simultaneous data & voice is easy.

    GSM is in no way technologically superior to CDMA. You might think the data/voice issue trumps CDMA, but consider this - I have a Jeep that will go far offroad, with WWII chassis technology. It is in no way technologically superior to my ZR1.

    GSM is ancient technology. CDMA is modern tech.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by TwinsX2Dad; 10-11-09 at 10:21 PM.
    10-11-09 10:18 PM
  11. Champer's Avatar
    That was a **** of a WAP post my friend
    10-11-09 10:38 PM
  12. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    It is small compared to some I've written

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-11-09 10:45 PM
  13. Polychrome's Avatar
    As usual, we have Twins, the walking Cell Phone Encyclopedia.

    I do have to add that you see quite a bit of CDMA around South America as well, though. Western Hemisphere in general seems to have most of it, then Southeast Asia.

    At least from what I've seen...
    10-12-09 03:29 AM
  14. Sotampagator's Avatar
    I guess the question is if CDMA is the preferred technology and BB represents 42% of VZW's smartphone lineup, why is there such a time lag for getting the BB's pumped out? I assume it's either that the GSM BB market is larger and is therefore preferred by RIM or that Qualcom is responsible for the delay. I don't know, but it is annoying to repeatedly see the CDMA carriers lagging consistently 1-2 years behind in BB technology. I love my BBs and Vz, but it's annoying when a piece of crap carrier like T-Mob gets their similar devices a year before we do, over and over again.
    10-12-09 11:08 AM
  15. Jim from NW Pa's Avatar
    There are approximately 500 million cdma cell phone subscribers worldwide. Compare that to over 3 billion gsm users and you will see why

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-12-09 02:55 PM
  16. Sotampagator's Avatar
    Thanks Jim. So, the short answer is that we got screwed because VZ and Sprint opted for the Sony Beta/HD-DVD equivalent. Maybe Apple will be able to pump out the Verizon iphone version quicker than the Canucks can with the BBs!
    10-12-09 03:22 PM
  17. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    I guess the question is if CDMA is the preferred technology and BB represents 42% of VZW's smartphone lineup, why is there such a time lag for getting the BB's pumped out? I assume it's either that the GSM BB market is larger and is therefore preferred by RIM or that Qualcom is responsible for the delay. I don't know, but it is annoying to repeatedly see the CDMA carriers lagging consistently 1-2 years behind in BB technology. I love my BBs and Vz, but it's annoying when a piece of crap carrier like T-Mob gets their similar devices a year before we do, over and over again.
    You have again missed out on the fact T-Mobile still has no touchscreen BlackBerry or a Tour/Bold equivalent. They have one phone as their own for the moment.

    VZW has 42% of their smartphones as BlackBerrys because it is their choice with agreements with RIM & it has nothing to do with releases or popularity or technology.

    It also has little to do with worldwide numbers, as BlackBerry isn't that popular outside of North America & CDMA is the predominant North American technology.

    CDMA BlackBerry models have kept pace or exceeded the number of GSM BlackBerrys for awhile now.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-12-09 03:29 PM
  18. yacoby54's Avatar
    I appreciate your insight, but, with the exception of the Storm, whcih was clearly a defensive move to ward off losses due to the iphone/ATT, you can't really say with a straight face that the CDMA stuff doesn't significantly lag the GSM stuff. The Tour runs the same type of technology/specs as the Bold and was almost a year late. I've been through this on at least 3 generations of BBs and the GSM is almost always a year ahead. The question is why?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Initially CDMA lagged way behind because RIM's internal cdma labs and departments were no where near the size of their gsm labs. That is what a RIM sales exec stated last year at WES when I posed that question to him.

    As for the Bold, it was an exclusive to AT&T, no other American GSM carrier got the Bold either, nor did they have a comparable Blackberry on their network. The 8900 came out for T-Mobile some 6-8 months after the Bold was released if not longer, why are you not questioning that? The name of the game anymore is exclusive contracts with carriers so certain technologies are not going to be available to any other carrier unless the sales are not what they expected or the contract is up.

    There are not too many equal Blackberry devices anymore. It is rare that two U.S. carriers get the same device. There are exceptions of course.
    10-12-09 03:42 PM
  19. JustinD2473#IM's Avatar
    Just because GSM has more people using it, doesnt mean its better. There are alot of countries where CDMA isnt even available.

    In the united states there are the following :

    173 Million CDMA users

    114 GSM users

    Data from this article on wikipedia...all but 3 networks subscriber number is from 2009

    List of mobile network operators of the Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    10-12-09 04:02 PM
  20. leskchan's Avatar
    If I may summarize the post, we have already established that CDMA to be a better technology over GSM. We further established that GSM was adopted for political and financial reason.
    10-12-09 04:07 PM
  21. i7guy's Avatar
    Omnia, Tour, Storm, Imagio - all CDMA first. TP2 was somewhat simultaneous. T-Mobile got 8900, because they were neglected in the Bold/Tour/Storm releases.

    How many BlackBerrys does VZW have, compared with AT&T or T-Mobile? How many should they carry? They are already top-heavy in BlackBerry models, with eight. Non-BlackBerry smartphones are at eleven on VZW. Remember that BlackBerry is less than 20% of the smartphone market, yet they have 42% of VZW's smartphone lineup.

    If you look at the overall picture, instead of at single models, you will see that CDMA is not neglected.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Global market: Nokia, then RIM.
    10-12-09 04:29 PM
  22. Polychrome's Avatar
    I guess the question is if CDMA is the preferred technology and BB represents 42% of VZW's smartphone lineup, why is there such a time lag for getting the BB's pumped out? I assume it's either that the GSM BB market is larger and is therefore preferred by RIM or that Qualcom is responsible for the delay. I don't know, but it is annoying to repeatedly see the CDMA carriers lagging consistently 1-2 years behind in BB technology. I love my BBs and Vz, but it's annoying when a piece of crap carrier like T-Mob gets their similar devices a year before we do, over and over again.
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. I really don't see this "lag".

    It's true that GSM often gets "hot" devices before CDMA carriers do, BUT it is also true that CDMA carriers often get "hot" devices before GSM carriers do. I mean, remeber when the Voyager came out? An obvious attempt to pick on the iPhone, sure, and not exactly a PDA, but it was one heck of a cool device in the public eye! Not even going to get into the PDA lineup, which is turning out to be pretty darn good this year.

    This idea that GSM gets all the "good" phones exclusive or first is pretty much an illusion that people have made for themselves, due to GSM phones using Sim cards and being easy to switch. This is admittedly easier on the consumer than changing an ESN, and allows them to look off-network for phones. (The grass is always greener in somebody else's yard after all.) Because of this, one thing you see in GSM that you don't see in CDMA are novelty phones, made by cell companies but not subsidized by carriers, with things such as boombox phones or wristwatch phones and such. This is probably part of the reason LTE will use SIM cards, but it doesn't make GSM "superior".

    Oh, and there's always that little argument that most of our devices don't have wifi or that we don't have the Apple snobPhone. The only other devices I've heard customers lament over us not having are the Hello Kitty phone (an oddity by anyone's standards) and that Nokia media thingie, and there's PDAs that do the same, if not better.
    Last edited by Polychrome; 10-12-09 at 04:38 PM.
    10-12-09 04:34 PM
  23. Sotampagator's Avatar
    You have again missed out on the fact T-Mobile still has no touchscreen BlackBerry or a Tour/Bold equivalent. They have one phone as their own for the moment.
    This is not true. Their Curve 2 is very similar to the Tour and Bold. It has virtually the same specs as the Tour, but also has Wifi.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-12-09 04:59 PM
  24. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    Global market: Nokia, then RIM.
    For Q1 & Q2 2009, the following numbers & rankings.

    1. Nokia : 196.4 million
    2. Samsung : 98.1 million
    3. LG Electronics : 52.4 million
    4. Motorola : 29.5 million
    5. Sony Ericsson : 28.3 million

    Smartphones are as follows:

    Nokia: 15 million
    RIM: 7.25 million
    Apple: 4 million
    HTC: 2 million
    Fujitsu: 1.4 million

    A little bit that can be taken from that is how small smartphone sales still are in comparison with overall cell phone sales.

    But it doesn't indicate the total number of OS platforms in use - BlackBerry is nowhere close to being number 2, although in my mind now, they may resemble Number 2, in a toddler's perspective.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    10-12-09 05:37 PM
  25. i7guy's Avatar
    For Q1 & Q2 2009, the following numbers & rankings.

    1. Nokia : 196.4 million
    2. Samsung : 98.1 million
    3. LG Electronics : 52.4 million
    4. Motorola : 29.5 million
    5. Sony Ericsson : 28.3 million

    Smartphones are as follows:

    Nokia: 15 million
    RIM: 7.25 million
    Apple: 4 million
    HTC: 2 million
    Fujitsu: 1.4 million

    A little bit that can be taken from that is how small smartphone sales still are in comparison with overall cell phone sales.

    But it doesn't indicate the total number of OS platforms in use - BlackBerry is nowhere close to being number 2, although in my mind now, they may resemble Number 2, in a toddler's perspective.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    You did say smartphone, which implies more than a toddler, as RIM has no feature phone market. WM, iphone blah. Maybe Android. RIM has a clear market, though it's not the consumer market. Windows, 25+ years old, owns the world, yet I wouldn't want it controlling the avionics on my plane. Those BSODs are pesky creatures. Quantity is irrelevant to function.

    But I do agree smartphone sales lag feature phones, of course smartphone bills are more than feature phone bills. That may have something to do with it.
    10-12-09 08:09 PM
36 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD