I rushed to Costco to get mine (well not really, I went there after lunch).  They had those fake cardboard packages typical of warehouse clubs and I picked one up, went to the register and paid $780 big ones plus tax and ran to the little cage where they store these things. I was told I had to go to the Verizon counter to activate it.  ”OK” I said, even though I’m convinced that WiFi is the only way these devices really make sense. So I don’t need a contract. I just don’t want to wait until the WiFi only comes out.  The guy there tells me he will open a contract for me that I could cancel after a month.  The activation had a rebate and I’ll have to pay $20 bucks for the first month of service.  Irritating, but OK, OK, I really want the device. So they proceeded to open a contract and they ask for my SSN.  ”What, for 20 bucks? No way!”  to what the guy responded: “Yes, otherwise we can’t sell it to you.”  Weird.  So I said I wanted it without the contract. and he said “no can do”.  ”I’d like my money back, please.”  Costco, without hesitation proceeded to a full refund.

Now what kind of a ridiculous go to market strategy is that?  When your main competitor is not only $300 cheaper than you, and one year ahead of you but has a brand so powerful that can sell millions of phones that don’t work if you grip them the wrong way!  What in you mind will possess you to tie your product to a carrier?  Subsidies? I’m sorry, $800 cannot have a subsidy.  Unless Verizon is paying for the 4G-LTE upgrade which will be not only useless but painful.  We all know how that’s going to go:  Erase everything, make sure you back it up, ship and wait a couple of weeks for your devoice to come back.  And, oh, by the way, the 4G-LTE contract that works in 3 cities in the world is $50 more a month. You know what?  Keep your upgrade and your device!  I’ll keep my money.

Jobs and every employee in Apple must be laughing so loud that you can hear them across the US.  Let’s hope Motorola Mobility will back pedal quickly and get it off contract.   Otherwise I anticipate dismal volumes for the 2 weeks Xoom is ahead of iPad2.  Such a shame for such a good looking piece of technology.  The good news is that everybody else that will have an Android Tablet in the next few months will know not to do that.  I guess I’ll have to wait until someone makes one that has no ties.

Or please, exhume the Xoom soon from Verizon’s death grip.

Enjoy.

Now, that is not new.  Motorola tried to offer phone service around the world with the now defunct Iridium venture.  What’s different, one might ask?  For starters, Google is backing it, which means they are not afraid of risk.  Not that Motorola was, but Google has also a business model that can allow them to reach other heights if the forgotten 70% of the world starts searching online.

Second, and the fun part, the satellite constellation will be launched at 8000 km above the Earths surface, or 4 times closer  than geostationary satellites (like Iridium was).  This means that users will get 4 times less latency (aka delay) one of the limitations that made Iridium usage so annoying.   At this distance a signal will take roughly 50 mS to go up to the satellite and back to Earth.  Seems acceptable, right?

Third, it is not necessarily meant for mobile applications.  This means that you can have a huge battery since you will not be carrying the device with you all the time.  Again, like Iridium that needed a 20lb backpack to make a phone call.  Although they will probably do offer telephone services it is not its main purpose.  Internet access is.

O3b plans to start commercial service by the first half of 2013 after their first 8 satellites.  The question, my fellow reader (singular) is:  will they survive?  Who knows.  Like I said, Google backing means a lot, especially since they are so used to non-money making ventures but with a strategy to make them money in the future (Android anyone?).  But it is definitely an interesting approach that confirms the “universally available” part of Google’s mission. Will it support it’s “Don’t Do Evil” motto? Let’s wait for the business model.

Enjoy.

Let me tell you why I think that’s the case:  As lame as the whole category is in this blogger’s humble opinion, an unconnected (i.e. no cellular support) tablet is the lame of the lame.  It brings me back to the 90′s when you had to go home or to your office to get internet access.  Sure, the 3G iPad is about to debut, but @ $600+ i really think the market will be limited.  Now, if our friends in Verizon Wireless agree to pardon the Nexus One debacle and decide to subsidize the gPad, imagine what will that do to the price.  Neither Verizon, nor Google have to make money with the hardware, which really does a job to Jobs (sorry, couldn’t help it).  Estimates of the iPad cost put it at $250 – $300 US, add a 3G (or maybe a 4G – ooooh – radio), we could be seeing a street price in the $400′s.  Still hefty for a useless device, but less than $600+ for the emperor’s Pad (ePad?  now I’m pushing it).

But wait, there’s more!  Chrome Os is the word on the street, not Android.  What that may mean is a real processor capable of Flash (not Flash lite) and real browsing.  Yes, my friend, I believe it will be x86 based which means that every website you can go to on Chrome today – which is virtually any website known to mankind and robotkind – is accessible to your gPad.  Not even Palm’s (future HP’s MaxiPad) running WebOs can do that!  Apps anybody?  Yeah, sure, real apps with Java or the like, not fake widgets that look pixelated.  Content?  Did I mention it is Google?

So there it is.  As much as I hate the category, a subsidized x86 based tablet may be the ticket to ride.  BTW, Adsense must be having a ball with this post!  I’m sure the ads are funny albeit unrelated. Do comment.

Enjoy.

Mobile network deployments are expected to provide up to 15 Mbps of capacity within a typical cell radius deployment of up to three kilometers. Its main application is allowing for urban areas and cities to become “metro zones” for portable outdoor broadband wireless access.
WiMAX is classified as a 4G technology in the sense that it is significantly different than 3G wireless technologies like HSPA or EVDO.   Due to these differences, service providers can launch teh technology significantly cheaper than prior versions.   At the same time they drive complexities and high cost for the device manufacturers particularly in its early stages.

The main characteristics in the standard that make WiMAX so compelling are:

1. S-OFDMA (Symmetric Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access). The OFDMA modulation scheme allows for a significant improvement in spectral efficiency over CDMA used in 3G. This translates into higher capacity on the same spectrum allocation for the service provider. Symmetry allows for same upload and download speeds, critical for Web 2.0 applications where the user requires similar bandwith in both directions. The combination of these 2 features allows WiMAX to perform very similar to a traditional broadband connection like DSL, cable, or enterprise T-1’s and at faster speeds.

2. Full IP architecture: Non circuit switched architectures allow for bandwidth on demand applications as well as an easy expansion over time. This drives the right economics for the service providers allowing very high bandwidth reuse factors. Very similar to the wired Internet that grew extremely fast.

3. MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output): This technology enables a significant channel efficiency compared to SISO (Single Input Single Output) used in 3G by adding frequency diversity to the communications channel. Fading and multi-path, so common in urban environments and indoors, are frequency dependent. MIMO increases the probability of uncorrupted packets arriving at their destination. From the service provider perspective this translates into more users in the same spectrum due to the reduction in retransmissions and lost packets. From the device perspective battery consumption is being saved.

4. Frequency Agnostic: There are currently WiMAX deployments across the world in 450, 700 MHz; 1.9, 2.1, 2.3-2.7, 3.3-3-5, and 5.8 GHz, both in licensed and unlicensed bands. This allows adaptation to the spectral allocations and flexibility for large or small service providers. This is perhaps the feature that has yet to be rationalized since it presents a lot of complexities and cost for device manufacturers, particularly for international enterprise deployments such as multi-national companies.

5. Support for TDD (Time Division Duplex) and FDD (Frequency Division Duplex) profiles: This part of the standard allows for flexibility to adopt WiMAX in frequency ranges where either scheme is technically preferable or mandated by local regulatory bodies.

6. IABF (Intelligent Adaptive Beam Forming): This feature is particularly critical for urban environments where power is lost through absorption in buildings and other interferers. It also allows devices to operate at lower power by introducing antenna gain in the communication channel which also translates into longer battery life.
Although all of these features are technically compelling there are not WiMAX exclusive. Most notably the other 4G technologies that are being analyzed (LTE or Long Term Evolution and UMB or Ultra Mobile Broadband) are following similar technical recommendations.

It is worth noticing the complexity of this technology from the device perspective. Multi-frequency systems will drive complex RF front ends and antennae whereas TDD/FDD profiles with MIMO and OFDMA drive very complex baseband architectures. Silicon suppliers will require significant R&D investments in order to address these issues efficiently.

There are basically two main standards driven by the IEEE. 802.16d or “fixed” WiMAX, which is designed for fixed, nomadic, and portable applications. This standard competes with fixed wireless proprietary architectures, Metro-WiFi and hot spots. 802.16e or “mobile” WiMAX is geared towards internet-on-the-go-applications.  This is the version that is most relevant for a 4G applications.

The WiMAX standard is the result of two main standards bodies: IEEE-802.16 and the WiMAX Forum. It is similar to WiFi in the sense that the IEEE (802.11)is responsible of setting the standards and a group formed by industry leaders (WFA) is responsible of ensuring interoperability. Today more than 500 companies are members of the WiMAX forum, 170 of whom are service operators. Some of the most notable are Motorola, Intel, Sprint-Nextel®, Clearwire®, Bell Canada®, Vodafone®, Nokia-Siemens®, Alcatel-Lucent®, IBM®, and Cisco® through the aquisition of Navini in 2007.

The September 2007 WiMAX World conference in Chicago, one of 3 held worldwide that year drew an estimated 7000 attendees from some 500 companies and around 100 speakers. In contrast, 3GPP and the OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) responsible for driving the GPRS / UMTS activities has thousands of members and runs 3GSM event twice a year. The European event that same year drew 70000 attendees, 1300 exhibitors and 500 speakers (120 CEOs).

As promising as WiMAX sounds, it has not been selected by major service providers around the world for their 4G deployments. the only exception  has been the CLearwire-Sprint JV.  LTE in contrast has been given significant preference throughout the world and has the potential to overshadow Clearwire’s attempts.  In the US AT&T and Verizon have announced LTE as their 4G technology of choice.  Combined they boast more than 150 million subscribers.  In addition to that it is expected that most European service providers will follow the LTE route as well.  The economies of scale that this will provide for device manufacturers is tremendous.

The only advantage WiMAX has over LTE is the fact that it exists today.  An advantage that has a very, very short shelf life.  Can Sprint/Clearwire launch the service fast enough to gain some subscribers or AT&T and Verizon Wireless beat them to the punch?  A quick glance at their balance sheets will provide a hint.

WiMAX, perhaps one of the most exciting technology developments of the 21st century has the potential to suffer the fate of iDEN:  outstanding technology, potential for a great service, but relegated to a single service provider.

Enjoy.