[kman42]

Does this report make any sense? Other than Blackberries compressing data, which I get, how can RIM's involvement reduce the network traffic? Data is data. If you access a web page, it has to send the same amount of data regardless of which device you are on.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/Business

Perhaps they are trying to make the point that Apple's push technology has to ping the servers more often than RIM's? But certainly that amount of data is miniscule compared to the amount used by someone surfing the web.

The argument that one iPhone=20 Blackberries in data usage because RIM manages the network better just seems silly to me. Could there possible be that much different in data efficiency between the two phones? It seems more likely to me that iPhone users may use more data, but that is because the web experience on the iPhone doesn't suck like it does on a Blackberry. I would guess that most of the iPhone data usage comes from web access not from email.

Any explanations?

kman

[CorpITGuy]

I think the author of that article is a lunatic. Though the Blackberry does sometimes compress web pages and images, this produces an inferior user experience. This is why so many people chose the experience of the iPhone over their Blackberry devices.

To be sure, RIM's implementation of push e-mail is very efficient. That said, none of this matters. The real culprit is web surfing. You can surf from an iPhone, you can't from a Blackberry because their web browser sucks. That's the bottom line.

[osiris]

I have noticed increased traffic on my LAN, but nothing that hinders bandwidth.

Push has been disabled and I have enabled Fetch at every 15 minutes - yet the two iPhones still like to ping for connectivity constantly. I have seen nothing detrimental to my ping rates from my desktops though, and bandwidth tests at sites like speedtest.net confirm that everything is running very well.

I wouldn't use 'clog' to describe things, unlike the article.

imo Blackberry/IT Network people dislike iPhone users (&Apple in general).

[CorpITGuy]

Originally Posted by osiris 

imo Blackberry/IT Network people dislike iPhone users (&Apple in general).

This.

[Simon]

The article is a bunch of uninformed FUD.

The iPhone is a great device to browse the web and read email on the go. That's why people make so much use of it. And that's what causes an increased use of bandwidth. It has absolutely nothing to do with the BB.

[mduell]

AT&T is holding off launching other 3G phones because iPhone users are using more data than expected and AT&T's underprovisioned network is straining. Pretty logical there.
The iPhone makes less efficient use of network resources than BlackBerries because it doesn't use as much compression. No debate there.

Better mobile web experience than blackberries? Absolutely, but that's not the only cause.

[kman42]

This is what gets me:
"We believe that AT&T is now realizing that it can have up to 20 BlackBerrys for every iPhone on its network"

I don't think RIM's compression is 20x.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by kman42 

I don't think RIM's compression is 20x.

Of course it's not. And no matter how "magical" this BB compression is (which btw users pay for in terms of performance), compressing jpegs, pngs, mpeg, flash, etc. is useless. The only thing worth compressing is what isn't already compressed, i.e. raw html and ascii emails. Incidentally raw html and ascii use up the least bandwidth compared to all the other things people put on your average webpage.

The article is crap. What is true is that
• the iPhone is wildly popular
• the iPhone makes using the web over 3G nice so people are actually doing it
• the cellular networks are seeing such a device for the first time
and hence some providers (in some locations) are simply not prepared to manage that kind of load.

In a few years when all phones offer decent web/mail/etc. and other manufacturers like RIM will have had enough time to play catch up to the iPhone all phones will be producing this kind of load. The only real question is how well providers increase network bandwidth to match growing demand.

[mduell]

AT&T says they expected more iPhone traffic than has actually materialized: "The carrier anticipated a 5X growth in data consumption over the 2G iPhone, but it’s been closer to a 3X jump." - AT&T CTO John Donovan

Originally Posted by Simon 

Of course it's not. And no matter how "magical" this BB compression is (which btw users pay for in terms of performance), compressing jpegs, pngs, mpeg, flash, etc. is useless. The only thing worth compressing is what isn't already compressed, i.e. raw html and ascii emails. Incidentally raw html and ascii use up the least bandwidth compared to all the other things people put on your average webpage.

Except that RIM does compress images, saving tons of bandwidth, and doesn't support flash/mpeg in-browser.

[Simon]

Compressing web images (which are jpeg, png, etc. and therefore already compressed) is pointless. Compressing such a format saves zero bandwidth. Worse yet, users pay a performance penalty. Quite ridiculous if you consider these people pay for "unlimited data". It's really just a stupid idea. And I'm certain RIM will eventually drop it once they realize that all it's doing in today's market is putting their devices at a disadvantage compared to competitors offering a richer and faster web experience.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by kman42 

Does this report make any sense?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/Business

No. This is why financial analysts should not write about technology issues.

[issa]

Originally Posted by kman42 

Does this report make any sense?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/Business

What a funny piece of fiction.

Here we have an article written by a business reporter in a (once-respectable) Canadian newspaper lamenting challenges facing Canadian company RIM. The only person quoted within is a Canadian analyst (!!) with a questionable track record who works for an "independent financial services firm" in Canada; one who appears to be looking for more rationale as to why his overly optimistic forecast for the performance of RIM stock missed its mark. A fortnight earlier he was pointing his finger at "factors outside the company’s control like a macro spending slowdown":

Earlier rationale

In the same article, our analyst (!!) protagonist is quoted, "In our view, RIM’s business has not fundamentally changed, despite the recent pressure on shares and signs of modest product launch delays." Here we have "modest product launch delays." Now he's teaming up with a bud at the G&M to blame Apple for the BB's woes. Gotta laugh. Nothing to do with technology or reality here, folks. No real stats, no comments from AT&T, Apple, or even RIM. I'd bet that both analyst (!!) Peter Misek and G&M reporter Matt Hartley own RIM shares.

[CorpITGuy]

Originally Posted by issa 

No real stats, no comments from AT&T, Apple, or even RIM. I'd bet that both analyst (!!) Peter Misek and G&M reporter Matt Hartley own RIM shares.

I agree. Moreover, folks who watch the markets understand one important thing: the federal reserve and national press corp (and their pundits) serve their master quite well. They exist OF the New York Banking Elite, BY the New York Banking Elite, and FOR the New York Banking Elite. It doesn't matter what network you watch. They're all in bed together. In case none of you noticed, in the current financial crisis stocks only took a modest beating, losing just 40-something points this week. In other words, business is sound whereas the New York banks are collapsing. Those pundits are doing the same thing all the other ones are doing... protecting their money and their friends, all the time using the mindless dolts in the news media as their delivery method...