By the way, I should also mention that flat-rate data plans in US are
now priced between $10 to $40 per month, depending on the carrier and
specifics. I'm reacting to statements such as:
> As for mobile carriers...hmm. Data plans in America are still ridiculously
> expensive in my mind
I pay $10/month for essentially unlimited data. I can listen to 30
minute podcasts on my mobile without counting kilobytes. I can even
run a Darwin Streaming Server on my home PC and stream (RTSP) .3gp
audio and video to my cell -- affordably.
Of course the frame rate is abysmal. (So your smug Tokyo smiles have
nothing to fear.)
--Joe
On 1/29/07, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/07, Nick May <nick@kyushu.com> wrote:
> > This is just rumour/hype/vapourware, etc....
> >
> > http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/01/18/google.switch.phone/
> >
> > But I am curious as to whether people think the idea - having all
> > apps/data on the network - would fly?
> >
> > I am skeptical - whatever google knows about you, it would appear the
> > US government can know probably about you just by whispering the word
> > "terrorism" in google's shell like ear. Which rather puts me off.
> >
> > It's not just privacy concerns - it seems to be a backward step to
> > keep apps stored centrally.
> >
> > Would carriers go for it? Lots more data transfers, true, but it
> > relegates them to "data pipe"status.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Nick
> >
>
> I'm happily using Google Maps and GMail thin clients (MIDlets) on my
> LG handset on the Sprint network here in the US.
>
> In terms of privacy, the rumored step would be one step beyond storing
> all of one's email on the network, which is a step that millions have
> already taken -- myself included.
>
> So far, Google has distinguished itself from Yahoo, MSN, and AOL by
> refusing to provide search data - though in the end this may be
> nothing more than good PR ("we tried and they didn't").
>
> http://theprivacyplace.org/blog/archives/000128.html
>
Received on Tue Jan 30 19:29:18 2007