BlackDynamite
Android Expert
Then why all the debating in the EVO forum?
Like I said, I am weighing my options. And in the process, I am being presented with a lot of blatantly false information. I tend to correct it when that happens.
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
10 bucks is the deal breaker samsung galaxy s
- Thread starter ilaofficial
- Start date
-
- Tags
- htc evo 4g
Like I said, I am weighing my options. And in the process, I am being presented with a lot of blatantly false information. I tend to correct it when that happens.
DILands
Android Expert
My $.02. The Galaxy S rumors have it on all carriers. I would bet, IF Sprint gets it, same price, and same "deal" as the EVO. If that's the case, then pick your poison.
All I know is that I'm due for an upgrade in September. Was going to worm an early upgrade for the EVO. At this point, my head says "Wait till September, stupid". and see what happens.
IF IF IF, the S Pro Comes, or maybe just the S, I will give it consideration.
All I know is that I'm due for an upgrade in September. Was going to worm an early upgrade for the EVO. At this point, my head says "Wait till September, stupid". and see what happens.
IF IF IF, the S Pro Comes, or maybe just the S, I will give it consideration.
n0apostrophe
Member
i have been with tmobile for 6 years and haven't had any problem with their service or customer care. they were even great when i lived in canada and just used text messaging.
about 8 months ago i switched to the 49.99 em+ plan (1000 minutes, free n/w at 9, unlimited texts). i realized that even without a subsidized phone, i would save close to $250 over a two year period (length of usual contract even though i had no contract). however, i was waiting to upgrade to an android phone/plan, but the nexus one was the only android phone in their line-up that impressed me. i kept waiting and waiting, but even their 2010 road map didn't look good. my only problem with tmobile was that they have always been behind other carriers when it comes to flagship devices. yes, they released the first android phone. i know, but it was out of my budget at that time and now that i can afford a smart phone/plan, i am not impressed with their selection.
i was a lurker on tmonews.com and their forum and about two months ago someone commented about the evo and sprint's everything plan. this was before all the $10 additional fee, but the sprint plan would be almost the exact same price as the tmobile plan i would have to upgrade to for an android phone (i know the minutes are different, but the unlimited mobile to mobile on any network more than makes up for the 550 minute difference between the two). however, with the em+ plan on tmobile i cannot receive any discounts. whereas, with sprint i will not only get a subsidized phone, but i will also be able to get a 25% a month discount (plus some other government job perks). signing a two year contract does not deter me from getting the evo.
so i am leaving tmobile as a satisfied customer and jumping to sprint based on a phone. my monthly bill will be slightly cheaper than tmobile (i had anticipated even more savings, but the $10 charge took care of that) because of the discount and i am really excited for my first android phone. good luck with your research and i agree about the gsm part. the sim card is something i will miss.
ilaofficial
Member
Looks like project emerald is the galaxy s for tmobile
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I only quoted this part so it would be easier to read my post though.
That's what it's all about though man- finding the phone you want and going with that carrier. It just pisses me off when someone makes rdiculous statements like "T-Mobile sucks" or something equally baseless.
It seems like there are a few fanboys here who only want a big circle jerk. If you say anything whatsoever, other than "I am willing to perform oral sex on Dan Hesse and I will do it to strangers on the street in order to get the Evo" then you are not welcome here.
Like I have said countless times, I was so excited to get the Evo that I was almost planning on camping out. A pre order was such a sure thing, that I made sure I had enough money in my account to do it on day 1 (4 of them, 1 for each of my lines). Then came the news of the $10 extra fee, and the realization that my 4 line family plan would cost an extra $40 per month, and I am not even in a 4G area.
So I started weighing my options, and all the fanboys decided to jump all over me for it.
Man, you gotta do whats right for YOU. If thats the Galaxy S, more power to you.
I don't care what phone you choose, but the OP made people mad by wasting everyones time by making this thread about it. It doesn't belong.
how is he wasting anybodys time you have choice you don't have to read any of this and he has not wasted your time. Sprint is ripping us all with this $10 fee and thats a fact weather you want to accept it or not is up to you. They have zero ground as far as their resoning for charging the fee and I totaly agree with the OP and will try out the evo for 30 days and ruturn it then.
KoukiFC3S
Android Expert
Are you sure it's $10 extra per line?
BlackDynamite
Android Expert
Yes.
KoukiFC3S
Android Expert
Where did you see that? It doesn't make sense.. Is that with 4 EVOs or just one and 3 other phones?
EDIT: Just called Sprint and the rep said $10 extra per EVO line.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Financing is phone is hardly a better option.
.
I know tmobiles lineup. The HD2 is a beast of a phone, but it's stuck on an old winmo which makes it irrelevant. The eVo is a pretty nice upgrade from the N1, while it may be in the same league, the eVo is better.
Prepaid plans are not comparable to post paid. You get less tower priority. And alot more 3G coverage with Sprint.
Spint has cheaper plans too, but you don't get as much. This is a moot point.
I said WCDMA is a variant of CDMA, which it is. Look it up.
CDMA also has an RUIM option, (not implented in the states, don't know why)
RUIM is the SIM equivalent for CDMA, so your argument is moot. Also, I can esn swap without any fees in 2 minutes pretty easily.
Just because something is more widely adopted, doesn't mean it's better. Asian countries use CDMA, and they are the best of the best when it comes to all things cellular/mobile. Also, want to know the real reason GSM became the world standard? In Europe, various governments decided that they (the Europeans) had designed the ultimate digital cellular system, and they passed laws making it illegal to deploy anything except GSM, whose primary supporters/suppliers were Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens and Alcatel.
Let's expand upon this.
The original cell phones were analog, using fairly straightforward FM for voice communication. When your phone was in a call, it was granted a frequency by the cell and used it exclusively for the entire duration of the call. FM encoding is extremely inefficient in use of bandwidth, and spectrum was scarce and expensive, and it rapidly became clear that FM wasn't able to handle the traffic which was expected and which was really needed to make cellular telephony a profitable business. One obvious approach was to use digital communications, and to take advantage of advances in microprocessor and digital IC technology to compress the voice traffic going both directions, and thus you saw deployment of the first Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) digital systems. What they do is to take a single channel and timeshare it among several phones, who digitize and compress their voice traffic and transceive it during their timeslice. With IS-136, a 30 KHz channel which had carried only one voice call with AMPS could now carry three digitized calls.
GSM went further than that, and abandoned the old channel size entirely. It allocated 200 KHz channels and divided them into 8 slices, giving each phone somewhat less than 25 KHz effective bandwidth. (There are some losses due to time guardbands and protocol overhead.)
GSM also included a very powerful set of features above that, and included some interesting features not directly associated with the RF link, such as a personality module which contained a customer's phone number and billing information that could be moved to another phone any time the customer wished to. (That particular featured turned out to be a decidedly mixed blessing. While that ability was very convenient for legitimate customers, it was also a magnet for thieves and frauds.)
GSM was clearly superior to IS-136 or such abortions as IDEN (a Motorola design which never became an industry standard because Moto was never willing to license it, which meant that systems which adopted it could only get infrastructure and handsets from Motorola).
In the computer industry we talk about the "ISO seven layer model", where the process of communication is modularized and each layer uses the one below it without worrying how the lower layer actually works. TCP works whether the physical layer is 802.11b or ethernet or something else entirely, and TCP itself doesn't change based on that. TCP uses IP, and IP uses the datalink layer, and the problems of the physical layer are dealt with by the datalink layer. But if the physical layer is a 56 KBaud modem, then there are things which won't be possible, which might be possible with 100 megabit ethernet. No amount of work at higher levels can compensate for the fundamental superiority of ethernet over a telephone modem.
Cell phone protocols do the same kind of thing. There's an RF layer and protocols above that, some of which can be very high level and quite abstract, such as the one which controls sending of text messages. However, the change from analog to TDMA was a change at the RF layer. CDMA was yet another approach to the RF layer, which was radically different again. (IS-95 is a specification for a complete protocol stack which includes CDMA as its RF layer.)
In fact, CDMA was so revolutionary that when it was first discussed, many thought it couldn't be made to work. Indeed, at least one European company deeply involved with GSM, Ericsson, went through the three classic stages of Not Invented Here syndrome:
1. It's impossible.
2. It's infeasible.
3. Actually, we thought of it first.
In IS-95 CDMA, a single carrier frequency has a bandwidth of 1.2288 MHz, and up to 40 cell phones in a given sector can all be transmitting chips at that rate on the same carrier frequency, which seemed on first examination to assume that it was possible to send fifty million bits through a one-and-a-quarter MHz band, which would indeed violate Shannon. The mistake they made was that chips aren't "information" based on Shannon's definition, and though those phones were sending chips that fast, they were actually sending bits (real data) at no more than 14,400 bits per second each. (I'll try not to get too bogged down in technical details here, but to some extent it's unavoidable.)
Unfortunately, Qualcomm did a field test in New York City where several prototype phones mounted in vans were able to operate at once on the same frequency talking to multiple cells all of which also operated on the same frequency.
The next argument was that though it seemed technically possible, it would be too expensive. Everyone knew that the electronics required to make CDMA work was a lot more complicated than what TDMA used, and Ericsson's loud voices claimed that it could never be reduced in price enough to make it competitive. And shortly thereafter Qualcomm proved that wrong, too, by beginning to produce both infrastructure and phones at very competitive prices. (Qualcomm did this to bootstrap the industry. It's no longer in either business.)
After which Ericsson suddenly decided that it had applicable patents and took Qualcomm to court. Over the long drawn out process of litigation, every single preliminary court judgment went in favor of Qualcomm, and it became obvious that Ericsson didn't have a case and that Qualcomm wasn't going to be intimidated. Ultimately, the entire case was settled in a massive omnibus agreement where Ericsson became the last of the large companies in the industry to license Qualcomm's patents (on the same royalty terms as everyone else) while taking a large money-losing division off Qualcomm's hands and assuming all the liabilities associated with it, and granting Qualcomm a full license for GSM technology. The industry consensus was that this represented a full scale surrender by Ericsson.
Nokia wasn't anything like as foolish and had licensed several years before. (Just in passing, the fools at Ericsson are in the front office. Their engineers are as good as anyone else's.)
Still, in the years of apparent chaos in the US, when loud voices in Europe proclaimed the clear advantage of a single continental standard, order began to appear out of the chaos here. Small companies using the same standards set up roaming agreements, and then started merging into larger companies, which merged into yet larger ones. One company (Sprint) started from scratch to build nationwide coverage. Bell Atlantic Mobile acquired GTE Mobile (who had been a joint partner in PrimeCo), and eventually merged with Airtouch to form Verizon, all of which was based on IS-95 CDMA, mostly on 800 MHz. Sprint eventually implemented a reasonable nationwide system also based on CDMA. The last major nationwide system to form was Cingular, after the various GSM carriers in the US realized they were in big trouble competing against Verizon and Sprint and AT&T (which uses IS-136).
Once the existence and commercial feasibility of CDMA were established beyond doubt, other aspects of it began to become clear. At the RF layer, CDMA was obviously drastically superior to any kind of TDMA. For one thing, in any cellular system which had three or more cells, CDMA could carry far more traffic within a given allocation of spectrum than any form of TDMA. (Depending on the physical circumstances, it's usually three times as much but it can be as much as five times.) For another, CDMA was designed from the very beginning to dynamically allocate spectrum.
In TDMA, a given phone in a given voice call is allocated a certain fixed amount of bandwidth whether it needs it or not. In IS-136 that's a bit less than 10 KHz, in GSM it's somewhat less than 25 KHz. (Going each direction; the total is twice that.) But humans don't use bandwidth that way; when you're talking, I'm mostly listening. So your 25 KHz channel to me is carrying your voice, and my 25 KHz channel to you is carrying the sound of me listening to you silently.
In CDMA, the amount of bandwidth that a given phone uses changes 50 times per second, and can vary over a scale of 8:1. When I'm silent, I'm only use 1/8th of the peak bandwidth I use when I'm talking. (But I don't actually send full rate most of the time even when I'm speaking.) That's very useful for voice but it's essential for data which tends to be extremely bursty, and CDMA was born able to do this. It's always had that capability. It's also always had the ability for different phones to be given different overall allocations of bandwidth, because the initial standard included both 8K and 13K codecs (which respectively use 9600 baud and 14,400 baud). So when higher data rates were desired, it was possible to augment the cell and create new cell phones which could transmit 56 kilobits per second using the same frequency as existing handsets.
When GSM wanted to do that (send data at a rate faster than the existing voice channel supported), they ended up having to allocate an entirely new carrier just for that job, which handled nothing except data, and to deploy entirely new infrastructure for it. The resulting system is called GPRS, and in many ways it turned out to be very unsatisfactory for the operating companies because it's really expensive to deploy and because it cuts down on the bandwidth they have available for voice. A given chunk of spectrum must be permanently assigned to one or the other; it can't be reallocated dynamically. Data and voice in CDMA, on the other hand, both use the same carrier and bandwidth is reallocated between the two 50 times per second automatically, and you can implement high speed data without having to install new transmitters in all the cells.
With the push to greater and greater data rates, everyone recognized that a new generation of cellular equipment would be needed, the legendary 3G.
And for the reasons given above, and several others, it was equally clear that it had to use a CDMA air interface. GSM was the very best propeller-driven fighter money could buy, but CDMA was a jet engine, and ultimately TDMA could not compete. The fundamental weakness of TDMA at the RF layer could not be compensated for at any layer higher than that, no matter how well designed it was. GSM/TDMA was a dead end, and to create 3G, Europe's electronics companies were going to have to swallow their pride and admit that Qualcomm had been right all along.
This article in the Economist (old, but relevant) says that it's not going well. When Qualcomm and its partners designed a new 3G system with new capabilities, they were able to make it backward compatible with IS-95. The new standard is called CDMA 2000, and a CDMA2K handset can work with IS-95 infrastructure, and an IS-95 handset can work with CDMA2K infrastructure, and CDMA2K cells can sit next to IS-95 cells and use the same frequencies. Thus existing operating companies using IS-95 can upgrade incrementally replacing individual cells as budget allows and selling new handsets without having to wholesale replace all existing ones at once. Most important of all, it means that you can take an existing system using an existing spectrum license, and phase it over without acquiring any new spectrum.
None of that is true for GSM. CDMA and TDMA are fundamentally incompatible and there's no way to create a new system (which they're calling WCDMA) which can support existing TDMA handsets. It's technically impossible for the new standard to be backward compatible. Worse is that there's no easy way to phase existing spectrum over. In practice, when WCDMA appears, existing GSM systems will have to install it all, issue new handsets to all customers, and then one day throw a switch -- or else they'll have to license new spectrum for WCDMA while continuing to run GSM on the existing spectrum for legacy customers. It's all going to be very ugly when it happens. (Note: It is possible to design new WCDMA handsets so that they are capable of working with old GSM/TDMA infrastructure, but it adds substantially to the cost of the unit. It is not possible at all to make WCDMA infrastructure work with GSM/TDMA handsets.)
I can conference call too... who would have thought! Conference calling is device Dependent, not network dependent.
Maybe you should do YOUR research. I have, and I even understand the technically aspects instead of skewed rhetoric carriers/media/governments feed you. Do some reading, it'll be in your own favor.
*Now you have detention*
You guys everyone is going to say whatever carrier they had sucked, that is all opinion based.
Sprint did invest alot of money for 4G, and now that it is $10 extra, they are losing potential costumers.
I would bet that Sprint would make more money not charging $10 a month, because more people will buy it, v. the money they will make with the $10 extra, but their are people who are turned off by that.
Since when did everyone turn in to a nazi about what we can post on here.
The OP clearly said he doesn't want the EVO because of the extra charges, and might want a different phone, big deal, the evo is talked about.
Sprint did invest alot of money for 4G, and now that it is $10 extra, they are losing potential costumers.
I would bet that Sprint would make more money not charging $10 a month, because more people will buy it, v. the money they will make with the $10 extra, but their are people who are turned off by that.
Since when did everyone turn in to a nazi about what we can post on here.
The OP clearly said he doesn't want the EVO because of the extra charges, and might want a different phone, big deal, the evo is talked about.
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Keep in mind WinMo was much better than android until about 1.5/1.6, where they each had their plus's and minus's. Android needs to work on it's office capabilities, pdf/doc/spreadsheet viewing/editing. That's the only thing winmo has a leg up on android now. I actually test drove the G1 when it first came out, and it wasn't anything close to what we have now.
And sprint may change their mind again, I've talked to quite a few reps and no-one seems to know what's going on. Sprint may very well reverse this or say it was for something completely different, and make it optional. I think it would be in Sprint's best interest to do so, but the extra $10/mo wouldn't hold me back personally from using/getting in this phone, as I reside in a large 4G market. However those without 4G, I can understand your griefs/gripes.
misterzeno
Well-Known Member
U guys do know everyone one of you moaning in forums about extra charges are the very small minority, you just are screaming loud in a small room. The phone is a beast and if you really want it the $10 charge means nothing. Sorry Sprint is a business that has to ....well I dont know.. make money? Also, if you are that pissy about an extra charge to use the phone wait for a different phone or cancel your contract and go to another carrier and see how that works out.
Well here is another way of looking at it. On the family plans, the first two people are included in the price. Not sure if TMobile includes the second for free but we will assume so. Tmobile charges $30 extra per line compared to sprint that charges $20. So there is your $10 fee per phone, just disguised as an additional line. Now they do save you $5.00 per line if you are on the Even More Plus plans. So your $40 fee is cut to $20.
SO I guess it really is do you want to pay $20 extra for your family to have Evo and 4G and all that it offers NOW, or do you want to WAIT until TMobile comes out with something close, at which time, they may very well increase their prices as well? And how do you know they will come out with a phone similar to it.
Just for fun I selected the G1 as I played with the prices from a link on one of the other posts and it sells for a smooth $369. So there is another $70 for a phone not up to par with all the EVO can do.
I understand everyone feeling like it is stupid to charge extra, but bottom line is Sprint has something no one else has, they are still Below or at least very Close to all other companies plans even with the $10 fee.
As has been mentioned, sorry your DREAMS were crushed with the $10 fee, my wife wont be happy with that either when I get mine, but I still have 30 days to let the phone and all it can do, sell itself. If it doesnt, I can go back to my hero.
ilaofficial
Member
Here's the link T-mobile looks like the big winner early:
[Update: Thailand, Too?] Samsung Galaxy S Going To T-Mobile In The US As Project Emerald? Video Suggests So | Android Phone Fans
[Update: Thailand, Too?] Samsung Galaxy S Going To T-Mobile In The US As Project Emerald? Video Suggests So | Android Phone Fans
cesjr02
Android Enthusiast
Back to the original $10 argument. I can sympathize with those who already have Sprint as their carrier and don't want to see their yearly amount increase 120 dollars.
Some are mildly upset and perhaps rightfully so. However, there are a select few forum members who seem downright outraged. Using words like "deal breaker." Well that's their prerogative also. No one can help those now turned away from the Evo. Not the end of the world, right?
Personally I'm still saving 20-30 dollars over Verizon and US Cellular (for comparable plans). The 10 dollar add-on doesn't bother me in the slightest and I'd hardly see it as a deal breaker.
Finally we don't officially know all the plan details for family plans, correct? No clear indication if there will be a strict 10 dollars per phone or a family discount. We should just wait and see.
Some are mildly upset and perhaps rightfully so. However, there are a select few forum members who seem downright outraged. Using words like "deal breaker." Well that's their prerogative also. No one can help those now turned away from the Evo. Not the end of the world, right?
Personally I'm still saving 20-30 dollars over Verizon and US Cellular (for comparable plans). The 10 dollar add-on doesn't bother me in the slightest and I'd hardly see it as a deal breaker.
Finally we don't officially know all the plan details for family plans, correct? No clear indication if there will be a strict 10 dollars per phone or a family discount. We should just wait and see.
But they charge $5 to $10 more per month per additional line than Sprint does (For ANY phone you buy). See my previous post.
Like any consumer, people just need to see what works best for them. I cant claim to have researched everything, but for many, sprint will still be the cheaper way to go if you truly compare apples with apples.
Two big things to me are the unlimited calls to ANY cell phone. That is about all I call, so In essence I have an unlimited plan! And nights and weekends starting at 7 instead of 9 make a big difference to me as well since I make a lot of calls in the evening.
To each his own, everyone needs to find what is best for them, I just think this has gotten a bit crazy.
Im done
IOWA
Mr. Logic Pants
Well it seems this is only if you want the 4G, so it seems the fee may be optional. I don't understand why everyone is up-in-arms about this. Nothing has been finalized.
Wishful thinking, but it is final ..its all over the net!
The usability factor with WinMo is absolutely atrocious and if it wasn't for HTC heavily modifying he UI, the OS would've died a long time ago. No enterprise worth its salt utilized WinMo because of it DOCs, PDF and messaging integration - that crown has belonged to BlackBerry. Its still today the undisputed champion:
NPD Q1 Sales Figures.
As nice as the HD2 is in hardware - Andriod, BB and IPhone OS far outweigh any form-factor gains strictly on OS alone.
As for T-Mo - What's said has been said, Over the past 5 years I've been with all major carriers with their top-tier phones and T-Mo along with AT&T have left the worse of impressions on me regarding coverage, support, and call quality. And my opinion is backed up in the latest industry survey results:
ChangeWave Research - AT&T Takes the Lead - In Drop Calls
This is almost a silly argument to consider a $10 device fee would make anyone consider an inferior carrier with either higher costs, inferior call quality, lower speeds, and worse coverage (try using an IPhone in NYC and come back to me).. silly indeed.
NPD Q1 Sales Figures.
As nice as the HD2 is in hardware - Andriod, BB and IPhone OS far outweigh any form-factor gains strictly on OS alone.
As for T-Mo - What's said has been said, Over the past 5 years I've been with all major carriers with their top-tier phones and T-Mo along with AT&T have left the worse of impressions on me regarding coverage, support, and call quality. And my opinion is backed up in the latest industry survey results:
ChangeWave Research - AT&T Takes the Lead - In Drop Calls
This is almost a silly argument to consider a $10 device fee would make anyone consider an inferior carrier with either higher costs, inferior call quality, lower speeds, and worse coverage (try using an IPhone in NYC and come back to me).. silly indeed.