backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by hiscross.. on Dec 2 at 9:21 PM


Verizon Wireless is kicking off its 4G efforts by launch two modems on Sunday. Phones and tablets won't land until midway next year.  (Source: Verizon)
Two new modems will be available on Sunday, but no 4G smartphones or tablets

America's largest wireless carrier, Verizon Wireless, this morning officially kicked off its push for 4G. The company has launched its next generation wireless technology in 38 markets, which it says will cover 110 million Americans.  

Tony Melone, the company's Chief Technology Officer claims that the network will generally offer a 10 times performance boost over current EV-DO network (3G).  It will offer real world speeds of 5 to 12Mbps down and 2 to 5Mbps up -- several times 3G data speeds in many areas.  It will also cut the latency approximately in half from current 3G technology.

Verizon has "a very aggressive plan" to offer nationwide 4G coverage by 2013.  To do that it will be making use of its recently purchased spectrum in the 700 MHz range.

While it did not announce any new 4G-ready smartphones or laptops quite yet (apparently Sprint's Galaxy TabEpic 4G, and EVO 4G are still in a league of their own), it did announce two new 4G USB modems from LG and Pantech will each cost $99.99 USD after $50 rebate.  The first two modems will land exclusively in Verizon stores on December 5.  More modems are coming within weeks, and all are backwards compatible with Verizon's 3G network.  

The modems will come with a choice of two 4G data plans -- $50/month for 5GB or $80/month for 10GB.  Overages will cost $10 USD/GB, a pretty reasonable rate, compared to Verizon's past wireless modem overage rates, which could total a couple thousand dollars for going several gigabytes over. [
Ed. - Personal experience!]

Reportedly some of the new modems don't work with Apple computers, according to 
Engadget, who tested one of the devices.  Perhaps Apple is saying "no" to 4G, like it is USB 3.0Blu-ray, Flash, and SSD upgrades.

Another limitation is that while the modems can jump from 4G to 3G in areas of intermittent coverage, they can't jump back until data transmission is ceased (e.g. the network is disconnected).

"Other devices", i.e. 4G smartphones and tablets will likely be announced at CES and will launch in "mid 2011" according to Verizon's presentation.  

Verizon finished its presentation with a bit of humor -- "Whether you call it 4G or chicken soup, it launches this Sunday."

It also revealed during the Q&A that it might merge its 3G and LTE efforts in 2012 or 2013, around the time when it hopes to start transmitted voice information (phone calls) over its LTE channels.  Currently LTE will exclusively work with the company's data offerings.

There's plenty to take home from Verizon's announcement.  LTE is arguably significantly superior to the "4G-like" HSPA+ (actually 3.5G) that T-Mobile offers.  But T-Mobile has the edge in that it
currently offers 3.5G smartphones, while Verizon's offerings presumably won't land until mid-next year.  

Similarly Verizon has even more to worry about from Sprint Nextel, who currently is selling 
true 4G-enabled tablets and smartphones.  

On the plus side for Verizon, though, its deployment does seem fairly aggressive -- covering one third of Americans with a next generation data network is nothing to sneer at.  And the company seems well ahead of AT&T, which looks to be late to the gate  in the 4G generation (AT&T currently offers "LTE-ready" broadband cards, but its LTE network won't come online until next year).  With that said, AT&T currently has the fastest overall nationwide data network, according to several surveys, so Verizon also has to worry about that.

And it's important to consider that while T-Mobile and especially Sprint may be a bit ahead of Verizon, they're America's fourth and third largest wireless providers, respectively, while Verizon is the largest.  Thus lack of visibility and reputation may result in these companies being unable to fully capitalize on their technology advantage, in the brief window that it exists.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ahaha
By MeesterNid on 12/1/2010 1:37:44 PM , Rating: 5
For $50 you can keep it Verizon!

So you basically run out of data quicker and pay more in the process. Sounds like an all-around-good deal!




RE: Ahaha
By Connoisseur on 12/1/2010 1:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Those darned data caps... honestly, if they offered unlimited data for let's say 50-60 a month with those speeds, they would even start cutting into the business of major cable providers. I can see a lot of people ditch wired access for go-anywhere wireless. But 5GB a month? Not gonna happen.


RE: Ahaha
By quiksilvr on 12/1/2010 2:37:57 PM , Rating: 3
That's exactly why they have data caps. People will just use it all the time for their movie streaming needs and their network will crash faster than AT&T's did when the iPhone 3G came out.


RE: Ahaha
By Connoisseur on 12/1/2010 5:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I can imagine bandwidth throttling would be a better option. But I also realized that since Verizon has FIOS, they wouldn't want to cut in on their own margins...:P


RE: Ahaha
By Spivonious on 12/1/2010 1:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, 5GB on a mobile phone? Seems reasonable to me unless you're streaming a lot of Netflix (we watch a lot and average about 50GB/month total usage at home).

What I'd like to see now is the telcos step it up for home service. I'm paying Comcast $45/month for 12Mbps, yet Verizon can offer this through the air for $5/month more.


RE: Ahaha
By Drag0nFire on 12/1/2010 2:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto. Seems reasonable for "mobile" broadband. Not designed to replace your Comcast/FIOS service. This is for those that need broadband on the go, and it comes at a price premium. AFAIK, it's cheaper relative to the current 3G plan offered by Verizon ($60/mo).

It will be interesting to see how they price 4G for their smart phones.


RE: Ahaha
By Spuke on 12/1/2010 2:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not designed to replace your Comcast/FIOS service.
Those of us that live over in Buttholeville would seriously consider this for our main internet connection. I am somewhat lucky because I have wireless internet (wimax or something like that) but it's only 1.5M. And it's like cable where the more people that use it, the less bandwidth you get. I average 600k. On a good day I get halfway decent Netflix streaming.


RE: Ahaha
By MeesterNid on 12/1/2010 2:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps living in "Buttholeville" you may consider spending that money on a respirator or a truck load of potpourri instead of broadband, no?

Though I am impressed that they can "push out" 600k to "Buttholeville". What state is that in btw?


RE: Ahaha
By TheRequiem on 12/1/2010 3:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
So why is it that Tmobile and Sprint can offer unlimited data at uncapped speeds or data for the same price when Verizon (Americas largest network, or whatever) can not? Let's be honest, this is 2010 and we are still capping speeds at 5gb? There's no way Verizon will EVER see a penny from me again. Capping speeds is ridiculous or at least dramatically raise the caps, again, it is 2010. I doubt 5gb or even 10gb will help businesses much over any other 3G connection. All I can hope and pray for is idiots dont give into it and that there will be a mass exodus. We need to show these networks what we really want.


RE: Ahaha
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 3:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Providers can give uncapped access as long as the network isn't crowded or they don't mind providing a slow and pokey service in urban areas (AT&T in cities). Verizon still allows uncapped access for smartphones, but they cap access for laptops because those are used for things like bittorrent. Consumers using portable devices appreciate the speed, but don't use a constant high bandwidth like someone on a laptop can if watching movies on netflix or using PTP services.

All providers will eventually have flat per GB rates for everything (voice will be VoIP).


RE: Ahaha
By TheRequiem on 12/1/2010 4:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
The whole purpose of LTE and WiMAX and other 4G Advanced technologies is to provide wireless broadband, which goes way beyond smart phone use. This is not a reasonable or justifiable argument on the matter. 5gb caps are RIDICULOUS for this day and age. People want wireless broadband more for their computers, not their cell phones, hence the 4G LTE Laptop cards. I disagree with your assessment. There is no difference if it's wireless or wired other then the fact that they both run similar wired fiber optic & copper ground work... and so what if everyone wants to use data on their laptops for movie streaming, it's broadband and that's what it's suppose to be for. Businesses do video-conferencing and transfer large files (100+ mb's is not uncommon for big corporations sicne again, it's 2010).

This is plain and simply a scheme to nickle and dime everyone to death and it's not a good idea and I hope people don't buy into it. If it was such a big issue for them, they would announce very expensive uncapped plans. Instead, they have announced plans designed to rob us. 5gb caps are for people who don't use internet much, which is fine, but we are in an exponentially growing data-centric information age and we need more bandwith and uncapped speeds. Files and software are much larger and so are our ever increasing video codecs and streaming abilities. These plans are useless, absolutely useless for anyone who really needs the data. I guess there is always Sprint/ Clear who offer the same speeds with uncapped data and for cheaper. Seams like a no-brainer.


RE: Ahaha
By omnicronx on 12/1/2010 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree with your assessment. There is no difference if it's wireless or wired other then the fact that they both run similar wired fiber optic & copper ground work...
Every tower and its 20Mhz slice can only handle so many users, it does not matter if its 3G,LTE, or LTE advanced. The difference between wireless and wired is that we have cable nodes parked under ground very closely together (perhaps 10-15 blocks apart). On the otherhand we DONT have a bunch of cell phone towers placed within that kind of promixity.

Its a numbers game, and they quite simply don't add up with what you are saying.

Anyone who thinks that Wireless can replace wired anytime soon in urban environments are sadly mistaken. What I think is far more feasible is a replacement for those that live in rural environments.. (this was also a big part of selling off the 700mhz spectrum)

Do carriers still charge us too much for data? Yes.. yes they do.. But we need much higher caps, not unlimited access for all.. Just ask an AT&T user what it feels like to be connected to a bogged down tower...


RE: Ahaha
By TheRequiem on 12/1/2010 5:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
And that is all I am saying... Lower cost for low caps and introduce higher cost for higher caps. There's not even a single user on their 4g yet and if they want to grow into the "largest 4g network" then they are out of their minds with these plans. Both Sprint and Clear have millions of users on their 4g running hundreds of thousands of computers and dont have these issues, they publicly stated so and they are uncapped and same speed so I still don't these arguments are valid. Verizon needs to reduce cost and put the money where their mouth is.


RE: Ahaha
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 5:22:31 PM , Rating: 3
They can't sell very expensive all-you-can-eat plans forever. They did for a while, but as the networks got saturated they needed to segment the market. This is exactly how you segment the market.

Consider data access a utility. A little bit like a water bill or trash pickup. There is a flat fee if you want a typical, perhaps even generous amount of service, but high atypical use costs more.

I would even argue that cable, DSL, and even wireless carriers should charge a flat connect fee - say between $10-20 a month, and then you pay for exactly what you use. The connect and per MB/GB charges would be a bit higher for wireless, but it would at least reflect a person's actual charges.

But somehow I don't think this is what you guys want. You want a low price and to use all you want. You know, have cake and eat it too. Who knew this board was full of parasitic hippies?


RE: Ahaha
By TheRequiem on 12/1/2010 6:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
A pricing plan like that wouldn't work and I don't think you know what you are talking about to be quite frank. Come up with a valid point, all you can eat food is not a valid comparison, because they work and have healthy margins... The fact is, lol, is Verizon is eating our money away and at a much faster rate then how fast we can consume food!


RE: Ahaha
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 11:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
ROTFLMAO

Truest me, I have forgotten more about wireless than you will ever know.


RE: Ahaha
By TheRequiem on 12/2/2010 3:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, I'll "truest" you... =)

Meanwhile, the concept is less about wireless intellectuality and more about getting charged more and more for less.


RE: Ahaha
By mcnabney on 12/2/2010 9:18:09 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Prices have been falling at the big 4 American providers. Remember, back when EVDO(rev0) and EDGE were new? They wanted $80 for service. Then prices dropped down to $60 (and the 5GB cap appeared). Now they are dropping it to $50 and creating a new $80 bucket with a 10GB cap. It appears to me that prices keep dropping and dropping and speeds keep going up and up. In contrast I have been getting 10up/.5 down from Road Runner for the last seven years. Speed hasn't gone up, price hasn't gone down.
Also, I believe that before caps they used legalese against the heavy users. The contracts stipulated a number of unacceptable uses for the service which included any PTP, webcam/videocam updates, backups, and telemetry. They would actually disconnect and charge the ETF when the identified this behavior. Now they don't care what you do, just keep it under the cap.


RE: Ahaha
By phatboye on 12/1/2010 3:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think these prices are for mobile phones. This is the price for their mobile broadband data packages.


RE: Ahaha
By Alexstarfire on 12/1/2010 3:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that this isn't for mobile phones yet, right? This is for USB modems which will likely be used for laptops. Are you saying you couldn't easily go over 5GB on a laptop? I can do that in a day without even blinking.

The price is about right, but the data cap is not. Should be at least a 10GB cap for the base price, probably more than that though. The caps they have for 3G speeds are acceptable simply for the time it takes to reach the cap.


RE: Ahaha
By Spivonious on 12/1/2010 3:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, I misunderstood then. Still, unless this is your primary internet connection, I can't see going over 5GB in a month. I picture this as more of a "check my email in the airport" and "work on that presentation in the taxi" than "download that ISO of VS2010".


RE: Ahaha
By Alexstarfire on 12/1/2010 3:28:15 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with what you suggest is that 3G can already cover things like that just fine. Latency leaves something to be desired at times, but I know a lot of that comes from signal quality.


RE: Ahaha
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 5:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
It is my understanding that LTE delivers about 30ms latency, which whips my cable connection.


RE: Ahaha
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 1:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe the audacity that an American company thinks that they can charge less that they have previously for an industry-leading technology that nobody else has.

Doesn't Sprint have a $10 fee for 4G capable devices regardless of if you are even in range of 4G?


RE: Ahaha
By ebakke on 12/1/2010 2:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesn't Sprint have a $10 fee for 4G capable devices regardless of if you are even in range of 4G?
Oh, yeah common mistake. That's for "premium data" (the bits are given an extra special massage by a Sprint employee before being sent outside of the Sprint network), not for 4G. I can see where one would get that impression though. [eyeroll...stupid Sprint]


RE: Ahaha
By cknobman on 12/1/2010 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 3
Sure Sprint has the $4 fee which is why anyone would be a fool to buy a 4G product in an area that does not offer 4G.

Fortunately I live in a 4G area and have been enjoying 8-10Mbps down on my EVO since June.

Even with the $10 fee my family plan with 3 lines (1 evo, 2 lg optimus 3g andriod phones), 1500 anytime, unlimited mobile to mobile (any carrier), unlimited texting, and NO CAPPED DATA is still over $30 per month cheaper than an equivalent Verzion plan WITH NO 4G!!!!!!!!


RE: Ahaha
By HrilL on 12/1/2010 5:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
hahaha these prices are exactly the same as now. A 3G data card on Verizon is $50 for 5GB and no other pans are offered visibly (Though I've heard they had a 10GB plan for $200. Don't know who would be dumb enough to get that though since you could get 4 5GB cards for that price and get 20GBs but you'd have to switch the cards out.) So the $80 plan for 10GB seems like a new change of pace. I was expecting a price hike by at least $10 and expected 5GB of data to be $60...


RE: Ahaha
By BruceLeet on 12/1/2010 5:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
With increased bandwidth comes increased caps. If they keep 4G/LTE technology at 3G caps then that's something I think you should call your local/state politician about?

It is in my view something that should not be allowed and probably isn't, so either you are misinformed or just causing FUD for the heck of it.


You really can't compare LTE to HSPA+ and Wimax...
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 1:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
HSPA+ is already a generation behind. When you buy a phone from these guys they are going to be tying you to 2009 technology. LTE is the global future for the next five to ten years. In fact, you shouldn't even mention Wimax since Sprint/Clear has already announced that they are ditching Wimax and moving to LTE. If anything, Wimax buyers have bought a device that is going to drop back to 3G-only the moment that Sprint switches over. Not a wise decision if you ask me. At least the HSPA+ network will exist in 19 months.




By cknobman on 12/1/2010 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
You post shows what little you know.

Sprint/Clear may switch to LTE but their WiMax networks wont turn off and will still be fully supported. I have already verified this with them first hand.


By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 3:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, yes they will.

That would be like operating two separate networks. Of course Sprint is famous for losing billions of dollars doing the exact same thing. Sprint has neither the money nor the spectrum to double-down. Even with things getting better, they still lost nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars last quarter. Why would anybody do business with such a loser?


By DanNeely on 12/1/2010 3:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
I know they've talked about possibly switching to LTE, but I want a citation for them planning to pull the plug on wimax in the next 2 years. "Running 2 platforms wouldn't make sense" as an opinion doesn't count because sprint is still selling new phones on both the CDMA and iDEN networks.


By omnicronx on 12/1/2010 3:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you can, LTE as it currently stands is not real 4G (and neither is WiMax). While latency may be improved, real life performance is not that much different than HSPA+ networks..(there are also different types of deployments)

Until LTE advanced networks roll out a number of years from now, we will be in a transition phase (either 3.5G/3.7G/3.9G)..

The way the network is deployed also matters. Here in Canada, Bell's HSPA+ network is fantastic. Network theoretical speeds are up to 21Mbps. While you will of course never reach that, I just did a speed test inside my workplace and got a whopping 6Mbps. (its better outside).

Thats much faster than Tmobiles HSPA+ deployment by a longshot..

They have also just recently deployed Dual Cell technology which allows for theoretical speeds up to 42Mbps which will be quite competitive with Verizons initial LTE offerings. (if not better as deployment will be much faster as its just an upgrade to the existing HSPA towers that already cover the nation)


By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 4:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think the current LTE standard that Verizon, AT&T and the rest of the world will use has an absolute maximum bandwidth of 380mbs using all 20mhz and four MIMO antennas. Probably also within a mile of the tower.

So citing maximum theoreticals for HSPA+ still doesn't measure-up. Verizon isn't going to be marketing MIMO handsets, so that cuts the maximum theoretical for an LTE handset down to 95mbs. So I wouldn't be surprised if early LTE adopters might occasionally get ludicrous speeds, but there really isn't that much demand for it. Hell, they might even cap downstream at 15mbs just to keep expectations from rising to high. But really, 15mbs is a hell of a lot of data to consume. Of course downloading BluRay rips would take awhile, but that isn't what the mobile network is designed for. Now 720p video calls shouldn't even break a sweat.


By omnicronx on 12/1/2010 5:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying the are equal in general, I'm just saying they are comparable right now.

Verizon has no current plans to go beyond Category 2 perhaps 3 deployments (2 MIMO layers max) for consumer devices. The first phase will be Category 1 deployment, which is directly comparable to 21Mbps HSPA+ networks and actually a bit slower in theory.

The 380mbs speeds you speak of would be LTE UE Category 5, which we may not even see in consumer devices ever. (my guess is that we will jump right to LTE advanced, heck we may not even see category 4..)

Basically until Verizon rolls out category 2 equipment, its really just a bunch of '4G' hype, as 3G+ deployments can be just as fast.. Although as mentioned in the article, the latency can be improved by as much as half..(although from the testing I have seen, it does not seem to be the case in real life scenarios, definitely faster response times, but not 50%)


By omnicronx on 12/1/2010 5:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the current LTE standard that Verizon, AT&T and the rest of the world will use has an absolute maximum bandwidth of 380mbs using all 20mhz and four MIMO antennas. Probably also within a mile of the tower.
I guess I was not very clear.. those bandwidths do not exist right now as nobody has category 5 equipment out in the wild.. Verizon is just now implementing their Category 1 network and their speeds of 5-12Mbps sound about right..


Jason Mick's nose up Verizon's ass
By FATCamaro on 12/1/2010 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
Get your head out from where the sun don't. How is this a reasonable deal? Even the $80/month plan is not unlimited. Not biased garbage writing at all. Pathetic that DT is linked to AT (which I love).




RE: Jason Mick's nose up Verizon's ass
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can't possibly compare wireless to cable or fiber, or even DSL, for total capacity.

Verizon paid tens of billions for that massive 20mhz slice of spectrum - coast to coast. I think that is just for LTE.

Guess what, that is all the tower can use, so many square miles of people have to share that same 20mhz. Now, I know that LTE is really efficient, but they still can only get about 350mbs using the entire band. Now try to divide that across the entire tower. Sorry, but they don't want bittorrent junkies and constant Netflix users on their network.


RE: Jason Mick's nose up Verizon's ass
By Alexstarfire on 12/1/2010 3:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
If you're not streaming video then this is pretty useless. Don't get me wrong, people still need lots of speed at certain times, but with all the free WiFi out there I think the odds they'll need it where WiFi isn't offered is pretty small. 3G or 3.5G can cover, hell even EDGE, can cover the rest.


RE: Jason Mick's nose up Verizon's ass
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 4:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between doing an occasional video call and watching a TV episode versus streaming a constant HD video feed.


By Alexstarfire on 12/1/2010 8:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
True, but who the hell streams an HD video feed constantly, even on desktops? Got to remember they aren't talking about cell phones in this, but all mobile devices. This means laptops.


By DanNeely on 12/1/2010 3:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to be able to use wireless data at the same level as wired you'll need to be OK with wireless towers as densely packed as cable nodes. A docsis 3 node can deliver about the same total amount of bandwidth as an LTE tower. In suburbia they're placed at a density of roughly 1 every 10 blocks.

Current suburban tower density is closer to 1 every 10 square miles. Think on this for a moment.


Am I missing something?
By DanNeely on 12/1/2010 1:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also revealed during the Q&A that it might merge its 3G and LTE efforts in 2012 or 2013, around the time when it hopes to start transmitted voice information (phone calls) over its LTE channels. Currently LTE will exclusively work with the company's data offerings.


Aren't voice calls currently carried on the 2g network not 3g? Also, unless they're planning to force all their current customers to upgrade phones whether they want to or not how will moving voice to LTE or merging 3g and LTE help? They'll still need to use spectrum for old 2g feature phones, and 3g smart phones.




RE: Am I missing something?
By omnicronx on 12/1/2010 4:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
LTE is backwards compatible with CDMA, phones up until the cuttoff will requite both radios in order to function.

And yes you are correct, they transmit voice over 2g.. not that it makes any difference in terms of what was being talked about.


FIFTY !@!#ING DOLLARS A MONTH
By bill4 on 12/2/2010 3:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
Verizon is such a joke. Absolute extortion.

Even I'm shocked at Verizon's gall here. What a greedy company.

This is even $10 more than sprint charges you for the Evo!

Verizon is just awful.




RE: FIFTY !@!#ING DOLLARS A MONTH
By MrFord on 12/2/2010 10:14:35 AM , Rating: 2
What part of Data plan for modem you didn't get?


MODEMS
By RugMuch on 12/1/2010 1:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is completely different for phone plans but not much has been said so far on how this extends to other devices.




goofy comment
By ciparis on 12/2/2010 12:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
Jason...

quote:
Perhaps Apple is saying "no" to 4G, like it is USB 3.0, Blu-ray, Flash, and SSD upgrades.


I understand that you're just trolling, but I'm trying to enjoy this article -- how about knocking it off? ;p




Buy 2
By hiscross on 12/2/2010 9:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
"Another limitation is that while the modems can jump from 4G to 3G in areas of intermittent coverage, they can't jump back until data transmission is ceased (e.g. the network is disconnected). one for 3 G and one for 4 G. Just like their smartphones. You can call, you can surf, but not at the same time. Maybe that is why Apple says "No Thanks"




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki