



|
No surprise here as the Mobile Internet Device is the new laptop/desktop on the go, so to speak. Consequently you are going to have to upgrade the network. But yes I agree these stats make total sense. I commented yesterday about the "cellbow" and mentioned how that was strange cause most people I know text rather than talk on the phone. Still a neat stat none the less, better get those networks upgraded asap!!! This is just the beginning of the mobile boom IMO. |
|
If you give everyone automobiles, then you get more Traffic accidents! The more people have Internet, the less they know how to talk to each other. The lower the population, The more people have Cellbow! :P |
|
I don't get your last part animatortom. :) |
|
You see this is exactly what I am talking about with the Sprint subject. When Sprint drops this EVO unit, and especially in the large cities they have covered, if there network is not stout it will be slammed. I am thinking because there with a big player like ClearWire it will be fine though. So why would anyone want a 3G anything when you can grab an EVO and have a 10x faster 10x more capable mobile broadband, which also has considerably more security than anything with a 3 in front of it. Then you see mobile data is going past stationary data it just makes that point that much more valid. I think I need to grab some Sprint stock before this thing hits, as no one else will have it in place until at least 6 months later. By that time companies like At&t may very well have lost a good 25% of there subscribers to it. This is especially true in that the large surge of there subscriber's have been almost all smart phone users. In the technology age they will leave a company sitting on the plate like cold pancakes if they catch a whiff of some fresh ones. We will see I am not really predicting here, I am just saying with them having 4G available now in several big cities. When a able device hit's, all other providers may see a drop in subscribers in a months time. |
|
Not too surprised by this news. Voice doesn't really take up a lot of bandwidth anyway; in my opinion, if you're paying for a dedicated data plan, it would seem that you would by default generate more data traffic than voice. You'd need to talk a heck of a lot for them to even compare. Even people whose only data traffic is texting already rival voice transmissions. Excellent points about losing communication ability by texting instead of talking. Even if what we know as "communication" itself is evolving to be more computer-oriented, people still need to know how to speak effectively. Then again, if you use slang in normal speech and don't pay much attention to proper grammar, chances are that your abbreviated and broken texts will pretty accurately reflect your impaired brain function. |
|
I don't know if I would call it evolving. Maybe more like expanding. Are we really communicating less in a face to face situation or maybe we are communicating more while keeping face to face (or voice) pretty much the same. Like if I didn't have text, I'm not going to call every friend on my contacts list telling them something non-important like a Twitter-like message.
I think if we got some statistics, that would be cool. I'm pretty sure (or just hoping) that it isn't so bad as we are making it out to be. |