Can AT&T run 20 Blackberries per iPhone 3G?

[DR'O']

Is this true...?

"The analyst quoted in the story, Peter Misek, of Canaccord Adams, theorizes that AT&T can run 20 Blackberries on its network for each iPhone 3G, due to the fact that the iPhone 3G “lacks the data compression technology that is a hallmark of Blackberry devices,” and that AT&T could have to spend up to $1 billion to bring its 3G network up-to-speed."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=363

 

[TEG]

Sounds like crap.

TEG

 

[kyrow123]

I tend to agree with The General. When I had my Blackberry I rarely ever used the internet browser since it was God awful. Now with my iPhone, I can not stay off the browser (always something to look at and read while on the T or what not).

 

[Tosser]

The data compression technology is a bunch of crap. The only reason they'd be able to run 20 Blackberries per iPhone is because no one uses the shitbrowser on their shitberries which means they use far less data than us.

Hmm, someone seems awfully focused on faecal matters. Is it really that hard to imagine that NOT using compression (like anyone else) is making a 3G cell phone into a bandwidth hog?
Actually, even AT&T have admitted that the iPhone is a bandwidth hog. Well, not in those words, but still.

 

[neesh0]

doesn't look right, i don't believe it

 

[Small White Car]

I tend to agree with The General. When I had my Blackberry I rarely ever used the internet browser since it was God awful. Now with my iPhone, I can not stay off the browser (always something to look at and read while on the T or what not).

I've never owned a Blackberry, but I can easily see that I use the internet on my iPhone WAY more than my Blackberry-toting friends.

So the statement seems accurate to me. Among all you who are saying you don't believe it, do you really know Blackberry people who spend a lot of time on the web? (Outside of news sites and e-mail and stuff like that.) They always seem to be doing e-mail and text messages.

I'm always using Google maps and downloading lol-cats and streaming music and watching YouTube. Seems to be more data than e-mail, wouldn't you say?

 

[bluenoise]

Hmm, someone seems awfully focused on faecal matters. Is it really that hard to imagine that NOT using compression (like anyone else) is making a 3G cell phone into a bandwidth hog?
Actually, even AT&T have admitted that the iPhone is a bandwidth hog. Well, not in those words, but still.

I think it's a bandwidth hog compared to other devices, but only because it makes using lots of bandwidth simple and elegant. I had 3G phones before, but never used anywhere close to the same bandwidth simply because I had no compelling reason to do so. I doubt data compression had anything to do with it in my case.

 

[Tosser]

I think it's a bandwidth hog compared to other devices, but only because it makes using lots of bandwidth simple and elegant. I had 3G phones before, but never used anywhere close to the same bandwidth simply because I had no compelling reason to do so. I doubt data compression had anything to do with it in my case.

I don't think it's untrue that the people who buy iPhones spend a lot of time on the web. But when you combine that with a phone which doesn't use compressed data, the extra useage is amplified, if that makes sense?

 

[bdorpetzl]

Was this referring to 20 BB Bolds or 20 Curves/other Edge BBs? I have a hard time believing that AT&T has enough Bolds in the wild right now to accurately gauge the impact of a 3G BB, data compression or no data compression.

 

[bluenoise]

I don't think it's untrue that the people who buy iPhones spend a lot of time on the web. But when you combine that with a phone which doesn't use compressed data, the extra useage is amplified, if that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. I just don't know if it's true. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if BB compress emails as text is easily compressed. However, data that is already compressed, such as JPEGs, audio streams, video streams, etc. aren't easily compressed further, so that may have some additional bearing on the BB compression vs. iPhone compression. People tend to view more non-compressible data with the iPhone, I'm guessing.

 

[Small White Car]

I doubt data compression had anything to do with it in my case.

I think what they mean is 'regular sites' vs. 'mobile sites.' With my iPhone I tend to skip the mobile version (which contains less graphics) and go for the full site. Do Blackberry owners look at the mobile-sites more? I dunno, but I'd bet they do.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Hmm, someone seems awfully focused on faecal matters. Is it really that hard to imagine that NOT using compression (like anyone else) is making a 3G cell phone into a bandwidth hog?
Actually, even AT&T have admitted that the iPhone is a bandwidth hog. Well, not in those words, but still.

It is true that the traditional Blackberry web browser experience is fed through an intermediate proxy that compresses the data. HTML Web pages are converted into a format similar to WAP Binary XML (sometimes distorting the original appearance of the web page), and scripts are compiled into a bytecode form. Images are automatically transcoded to PNG and downsized to fit the Blackberry's default display resolution.

But Blackberry's own documentation claims that one would expect a size savings of only around 50% to 75% due to these optimizations. That would only account for 2 to 4 compressed Blackberry web pages for every single uncompressed page - this figure is quite a bit less than the quoted 20 Blackberries for every 1 iPhone.

I think the bulk of the difference would likely be due to a more pleasant user experience on the iPhone leading to a higher overall demand for viewing web pages.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

I don't think it's untrue that the people who buy iPhones spend a lot of time on the web. But when you combine that with a phone which doesn't use compressed data, the extra useage is amplified, if that makes sense?

That makes sense to me.