Related
as the title suggests, sure i read on t mob uk that the unlimited data dont include skyp and voip apps . . surely ths is horse sh!t?
anyone?
lr
They have 3 wnw, wnw plus, wnw max.
wnw has fup of 1gb and for web browsing only
wnw plus has fup of 3gb limit and allows im etc but not VOIP
wnw max is has 10gb and allows everything
MOJO
yeah that is what t-mobile quote as there packages but as far as the network is concerned, not matter what your doing, all it knows is that data is being transfered. They wouldn't know what you are actually doing, be it VOIP of using as a modem.
thx guys -coz obviously if it says unlimited data o the tin it goddam well better be!
one of the reasons i am splashing out for WnW+ is so I can skype - surely they cant tell the diff tween skype/msn voice data and regular data????
cheers
They could tell by traffic shapes (how they detect torrent traffic on regular wired networks) or by the ports used by Skype, MSN etc.
Funny thing is I have w&w from last year which gives me 40Mb of whatever I want a month.
I hate all this especially when abroad they mostly get real unlimited tariffs (like w&w max) but for a tenner or something.
I heard Orange had a reasonably priced unlimited but then you never know what the hidden limits are.
~Traffic Shapes!? jeez, you know the deep magiks!
Well I'd beinterested to hear what other t mob experiences are esp ones with WnWPlus...
mattstroud said:
yeah that is what t-mobile quote as there packages but as far as the network is concerned, not matter what your doing, all it knows is that data is being transfered. They wouldn't know what you are actually doing, be it VOIP of using as a modem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gotta be one of THE dumbest things I've ever read on a tech forum, even one devoted to mobile phones! Of COURSE they can tell what type of traffic is being sent! All different types of traffic use certain ports and certain protocols; and it's simple to differentiate which is which.
If VOIP is forbidden on standard WnW, all they need to is block the relevant ports and protocols it uses. If they haven't, then I'd say go for it; as they've not prevented you, but they CAN tell that you're using it.
I still have W'n'W 2GB plan from last year (before they split it into the plus and pro versions). I can't use IRC or streaming media (YouTube etc).
doesnt skype use port 80...
I got the cheapest wnw (£7.50 p/m) when I got my kaiser.
So far, I have used:
Web
Orb TV (Like slingbox)
IM is on all the time (Palringo)
Push email
I am writing this post on a laptop using my kaiser as an HSDPA modem
So far no complaints, if they do, I will move up to plus... I think as long as I don't take the mickey and stay clear of skype they will probs be OK.
I was thinking of VPNing into my house so they couldn't tell what I was doing
Same here, I got the cheapest W&W (£7.50) about a year ago and I've used it for pretty much everything without any problems.
Hi all!
Could any of you tell me if live radio stations work on WnW? I am not sure about the protocol, it may be mms or http or even shoutcast. The streams are not high quality ones, they are mostly 32kbit/s streams. I know the fair use policy prohibits using streaming media on WnW but is it actually blocked? I am planning on going on contract with TMob mainly because i could listen to my fav radio stations (foreign ones) on the go. Any ideas?
Thanks, Robbie
I just tested the freezefm.co.uk broadband stream ( http://194.150.120.40:8040/listen.pls ) and it worked fine
FloatingFatMan said:
Gotta be one of THE dumbest things I've ever read on a tech forum, even one devoted to mobile phones! Of COURSE they can tell what type of traffic is being sent! All different types of traffic use certain ports and certain protocols; and it's simple to differentiate which is which.
If VOIP is forbidden on standard WnW, all they need to is block the relevant ports and protocols it uses. If they haven't, then I'd say go for it; as they've not prevented you, but they CAN tell that you're using it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't all mobile phone data connections go through the network provider's proxy anyway?
I thought that was how they implemented their "Content Control" to stop under 18's from gambling and viewing adult content, etc...
If they do, then that's an even easier way of telling *exactly* what you're doing with your connection.
I guess they only really look at that if you're taking the pee with the fair usage limits though - it would give them a perfect excuse for kicking you off if you're using Skype despite the t&c's - but they're not going to care enough (or have the resources) to check out the usage of everyone who's within their one gig a month...
evilc said:
I just tested the freezefm.co.uk broadband stream ( http://194.150.120.40:8040/listen.pls ) and it worked fine
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply! Which plan are you on?
Man what a weekend. For the last 6 months I've been working may ass off just trying to stay ahead of the game. I'm overworked and underpaid (who isn't these days) and it starting to take its toll. I'm making mistakes I would have never made before. Like last night. I fell asleep early and the dog woke me up to go out. I took her out and in my dazed way back in neglected to lock the door.
I feel like a world class jackass but not for long. I'm looking for a security system. I need something advanced and am hoping among all the techies here there's some experience and advice on where to start looking for the best system.
Things I know I want/need are sensors for all windows, motion detectors, automatic light control, some fixed cameras, some 360 degree cameras. Oh and of course I will need an android app to interact and control the system.
In my case this was my own fault for not locking my door but it really hit home how unsecure my house really is. I have barely a line of defense and its time to get with the program. Even if I had locked the door there were still a number of unsecured entry points into my home.
So does anyone have any experience with home security? Do you have any suggestions on where to start? Have you come across any systems in tech blogs and such that look promising?
I'm beginning to research into all this as we speak but this is unfamiliar territory for me. I'm a tech Guy like you but home security has never been an interest till now. If you have anything to offer as far as what to get, what to do, and what not to do it will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
I've never tried an Android-based home security system, but I don't see why not. For example, you could install a Schlage LiNK™ system. There's also Alarm.com and ElkDroid. I suppose other home automation tools might be useful.
But, um... are you planning to take your Nook Color with you while you walk the dog? These apps require network access; if you plan to stray more than ~20m from your house, you'd probably need a portable access point. Of course, it's not a problem if you plan to monitor your home while you're at the office (with network access).
Good luck!
Thanks for the reply and links to look into. You made a good point about not having network access to my Nook on a dog walk. I guess in that situation I would use my android phone instead. But while at home since my nook is my go to device I would use it. I don't think the system needs to be android based but I would like an app that would let me monitor the security cameras, turn on and off lights, and be notified of opened doors and windows.
The system needs to be a hardwired system and if possible also be capable of wireless. Maybe I'm going to have to pick one or the other but I haven't figured that out yet. I'm probably going to start out small and cover the most important aspects first so the system would also need to be expandable.
I began searching the net yesterday for information regarding home security. Theres alot! Hopefully as I research and begin making my choices in equipment and monitoring I will update this thread to maybe help others. What ever I choose Android will be a part of the system.
Best security system you can get on a budget is a Foscam camera.
luke121 said:
Best security system you can get on a budget is a Foscam camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you mind sending me a pm about foscam? My restaurant just got broken into and I'm looking for an economic and proficient way to watch or protect.
Thank you in advance!
Sent from my unrooted Galaxy Tab.
I was robbed last night
I know the feeling well. I've been broken into twice. As a result, I called Brinks and had a system installed. But I kept forgetting to set the alarm and it was costing me $35.00 a month. So I began looking for other alternatives. In the search, I discovered all kinds of DIY things I could do to safeguard my house. So I ended up with a self defense website. You can install door and window alarms, surveillance systems, ect. There is actually a barking dog alarm that really works. A local woman had one and was able to scare an intruder off. I'm sure she thinks it was worth every penny she paid for it.
I was robbed also, about 4 years ago.
They made off with a new 24" iMac, WiFi printer, Gateway laptop, my old ass 8 year old PC with a 15" CRT monitor that I used to run Mandrake and other flavors of Linux on. They also managed to locate my backup hard drive in the kitchen.
I have worked as freelance Web Development & Design for years and lost a ton of work, clients respect and reliability.
I now have two remote backup hard drives (my moms house and my friend) with automation scripts that run nightly.
I use Dropbox on my two Android™ phones + my Nook + my desktop PC + my clients PCs.
As for home security: I no longer advertise on my vehicle, nor promote myself on the streets, I carry the minimum amount of cash, only carry one credit card, don't wear any jewelry, and talk to my children about the dangers of strangers, open the front door, etc.
Plus we have the peace of mind having electronic home security, motion sensors, door + window sensors, etc.
The geek in me wants to install a few webcams throughout the house, front yard, back, etc. and have access to view them via https via one of my websites.
But that'll have to wait.
I have 2 Panasonic Network Cameras with audio. You can monitor the cams on your Android phone with an app. There is a way to set it up for motion detection too.
Thanks for the replies. I'm still searching for the best system to meet my needs. We did check into ADT but I'd hate to pay the 35 dollars a month bill when we have the tech today that would make proffesional monitoring a waste. They do provide the equipment and install which is nice though.
Isn't there some kind of security enthusiast sites like a maximum PC or Tg daily. A site that could get me better informed of my options?
IFLATLINEI said:
Thanks for the replies. I'm still searching for the best system to meet my needs. We did check into ADT but I'd hate to pay the 35 dollars a month bill when we have the tech today that would make proffesional monitoring a waste. They do provide the equipment and install which is nice though.
Isn't there some kind of security enthusiast sites like a maximum PC or Tg daily. A site that could get me better informed of my options?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best security I know is, no one can steal your stuff if its all on fire.
For a real serious system that is also open to DIY, I'd strongly recommend the Elk Products M1G Gold system.
A great site to learn more is from http://www.cocoontech.com
Can do extensive home automation as well if that's your wish.
Awesome! Thank you.
I'm starting a thread about this subject here because it isn't appropriate to continue a separate discussion where it all began.
There is a misunderstanding about Network/Data/Tethering Speeds and I would like to explain it the best I can.
If you Are using the root tether apps, you are connecting at 54Mbps.
- 54Mbps at 40% capacity is around 21.6Mbps
- 21.6Mbps is approximately 2.7 MB (MegaBytes) per second
- 21.6Mbps is also the MAX throughput you should expect
- With overhead and other factors, generally you will get approx 65-70% of that throughput that is usable data (OSI Model Overhead)
- 65% of 21.6Mbps = 1.755 MB/Sec Actual Speed Downloading a File, or 14Mbps
Why, then, would I get readings as high as 20-22Mbps via Speedtest Sites? Because that is RAW data (Little Overhead - OSI Model) and providing you with MAXimum Throughput readings on a 54Mbps Maximum Bandwidth Link.
Bandwidth and Throughput are Totally different, though mistakenly thought of as the same.
If your connecting via the USB Tether option, you are connecting at 480Mbps (USB 2.0 Standard), but you may notice via Windows 7, that the LinkSpeed is reading 412Gbps, which is obviously wrong, so going with 480Mbps for this explanation.
- 480Mbps at 40% capacity is around 192Mbps
- 192Mbps is approximately 24 MB (MegaBytes) per second
- 192Mbps is also the MAX throughput you should expect
- With overhead and other factors, generally you will get approx 65-70% of that throughput that is usable data (OSI Model Overhead)
- 65% of 192Mbps = 15.6 MB/Sec Actual Speed Downloading a File, or 124.8Mbps
If your network speed is at 21.6Mbps or less (SpeedTest directly on the phone), you wouldn't necessarily see any significant speed differences between the phone/USB Tether/WiFi Tether Methods.
If your phone, such as mine, is getting Speeds as fast as 40.5Mbps Down, then yes, you would have quite a difference between USB Tether and Wifi Tether speeds on your computer.
40.5Mbps = 5.06 MB/Sec File Transfer Rate. Because the capacity of the USB Tethering is way beyond the Max Network Rate (Phone), there is theoretically no Loss in speed. 124.8Mbps - 40.5Mbps = 84.3Mbps. There is over 84.3Mbps of spare throughput available.
So, for those who have argued that there shouldn't be that much of a difference between Wifi Tethering and USB Tethering, learn about overhead, bandwidth, througputs, and the OSI model. It's factual information and will allow you to understand more about the difference in speeds on any network. Using the methods of calculation above, you will always be able to know what to expect when transferring a file to and from the internet, or even another computer. Just keep note of the MAX output numbers. There will always be something that gets in the way. The Max Speed on the Freeway might be 65MPH, but when traffic is very heavy, you might be down to 20MPH. Same goes for number of computer on the information highway.
A good detailed Bandwidth Calculator can be found at: http://web.forret.com/tools/bandwidth.asp?speed=14&unit=Mbps
After looking at the preview of the post, I already know what I should expect as a question about bandwidth/throughput via USB mode.
Question: If you show the MAX USB Throughput to be 15.6MB/Sec, then why can I transfer files to and from phone and other USB Devices at 22+MB/Sec?
Answer: USB VS Ethernet. The USB Is actually being converted to an Ethernet connection for the purpose of Network Data and not File Data.
-Cybie
PS. It's late and I'm tired. So, if something is not clear, or it appears I goofed up something bad here, please do not hesitate to ask questions. I would like this to be as clear as possible as to why I answered other posts the way I did. And to do it here in a General thread in order to not go off-topic in a Developer Thread.
Speed Test Screen Shots Showing Differences
Ok, so photos/screen shots always provide a better line of proof and explanation. Because I tend to get much higher speeds than most, I wanted to show the difference in the speeds between Phone, USB Tether, and WiFi Tether when you MAX Speeds reach above 40Mbps.
PHOTO 1: This is a screen shot from my phone last night after downloading the screen shot app.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
PHOTO 2: This is a screen shot this morning on my computer VIA USB Tether (USB 2.0 480Mbps Link)
PHOTO 3: This is a screen shot this morning on my computer VIA WiFi Tether (Using Garden Tether with 54Mbps Link)
All these speed test results are from the same server (Tacoma, WA) in order to provide the maximum accuracy of changes.
-Cybie
Wow I wish I was getting 40+ over LTE!! Mid-20's is the best I get!
Sent from my Gingervolt-ed VS910 4G using xda premium
borborpa said:
Wow I wish I was getting 40+ over LTE!! Mid-20's is the best I get!
Sent from my Gingervolt-ed VS910 4G using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
These are crazy speeds. In fact, that's why I have no issue paying the extra $30 for the HotSpot service. $30+$30 = $60 for 40+Mbps Speeds, and the uploads speeds are crazy ridiculous also. Comcast at 20-22Mbps Down and about 3-5Mbps Up runs about $65/month. So, basically, I'm getting double the speeds for same price (actually for $30 since I already have to pay for the Data Service on my phone), plus it's available wherever I go. Of course, most areas are still 3g, but I'm happy with 2+Mbps down on the road if I ever need it, On-Demand and Verizon expects to have all 3g areas upgraded to 4g by mid to end of 2013, which isn't very far away.
-Cybie
What best I can get out here is 15-21. Be nice to see that
GINGERVOLTED!
Cybie257 said:
So, for those who have argued that there shouldn't be that much of a difference between Wifi Tethering and USB Tethering, learn about overhead, bandwidth, througputs, and the OSI model.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hehe...This is the pinnacle of polite snarkiness; especially commendable considering you were tired.
Seriously though, great post; I've emailed this to several people who needed this explanation.
On a related (though tangential) note, what do you guys think about creating a "map" of 4G speeds/availability by zip code/city? We could use Latitude or some other tool to create an actual graphical depiction as well. We'd start off small within the Revo boards and if it catches on, branch out to the rest of xda to get more data.
Is this something that would be at all useful, or--if nothing else--at least cool information to have/look at? Or is this my nerdy love of analyzing/comparing statistical data causing me to come up with nonsensical, useless ideas?
Thoughts?
jamRwoo said:
hehe...This is the pinnacle of polite snarkiness; especially commendable considering you were tired.
Seriously though, great post; I've emailed this to several people whom needed this explained to them.
On a related (though tangential) note, what do you guys think about creating a "map" of 4G speeds/availability by zip code/city? We could use Latitude or some other tool to create an actual graphical depiction as well. We'd start off small within the Revo boards and if it catches on, branch out to the rest of xda to get more data.
Is this something that would be at all useful, or--if nothing else--at least cool information to have/look at? Or is this my nerdy love of analyzing/comparing statistical data causing me to come up with nonsensical, useless ideas?
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like the idea, I travel some and its nice to know what to expect as far as network speeds. I'll participate.
ufkal said:
I like the idea, I travel some and its nice to know what to expect as far as network speeds. I'll participate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't suppose you know of a website that would accomodate what we're trying to do?
jamRwoo said:
I don't suppose you know of a website that would accomodate what we're trying to do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Off the top of my head, No. But I'll start at speedtest.net, and maybe DSLReports. See what we can find from there?
ufkal said:
Off the top of my head, No. But I'll start at speedtest.net, and maybe DSLReports. See what we can find from there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant as far as a means of allowing public contribution, geotagging the data, and displaying it on a map. I've spent the last 30 minutes looking and I can't find ****.
jamRwoo said:
I meant as far as a means of allowing public contribution, geotagging the data, and displaying it on a map. I've spent the last 30 minutes looking and I can't find ****.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahhh, now I'm stepping in what you're dropping. LOL. No I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm sure there is something out there. I'm looking as well. Probably something Google related I'm sure.
ufkal said:
Ahhh, now I'm stepping in what you're dropping. LOL. No I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm sure there is something out there. I'm looking as well. Probably something Google related I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I thought, but as far as I can tell, Latitude doesn't support the kind of public contribution and data/location storage we're looking for. Basically we need geocaching, but without the stupid treasure hunting part.
jamRwoo said:
That's what I thought, but as far as I can tell, Latitude doesn't support the kind of public contribution and data/location storage we're looking for. Basically we need geocaching, but without the stupid treasure hunting part.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although maybe finding decent consistent 4G is the treasure? "Stand on X to get insane Speeds "
ufkal said:
Ahhh, now I'm stepping in what you're dropping. LOL. No I haven't the foggiest idea. I'm sure there is something out there. I'm looking as well. Probably something Google related I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have any luck?
If you're interested, I'll be on IRC most of the day...You should jump on so we can discuss this potential project.
jamRwoo said:
You have any luck?
If you're interested, I'll be on IRC most of the day...You should jump on so we can discuss this potential project.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't had much luck, I was out most of the day yesterday at the ER with my boy. I'll try to get onto IRC after I talk to a couple of clients this morning.
ufkal said:
I haven't had much luck, I was out most of the day yesterday at the ER with my boy. I'll try to get onto IRC after I talk to a couple of clients this morning.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn, sorry to hear that. Hope your son is alright now.
jamRwoo said:
Damn, sorry to hear that. Hope your son is alright now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, he's okish. He caught a nasty bug that emptied him from both ends for several hours. He's starting to feel better, and at least keep stuff in.
N tether?
Cybie257 said:
If you Are using the root tether apps, you are connecting at 54Mbps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hiya
speaking about speeds. If I know that both my phone and my laptop is N capable, is there any way to create an N wifi link between them?
I'm not much interested about the external 3g net coverages or speeds but to pump up the lan transfer speed between my phones internal memory and my pc.
there's a nice app for example called Wifi File Explorer. Usually I get between 993-1100 KB/sec upload speed to the internal directories.
I hit roughly the same boundaries if I try to stream some videos via the web interface of the VLC media player targeting my tablet
Reading through your post these seem to be quite normal speeds for 54mbps if I understand it right, but can anything be done to improve this still?
nagymancs said:
Hiya
speaking about speeds. If I know that both my phone and my laptop is N capable, is there any way to create an N wifi link between them?
I'm not much interested about the external 3g net coverages or speeds but to pump up the lan transfer speed between my phones internal memory and my pc.
there's a nice app for example called Wifi File Explorer. Usually I get between 993-1100 KB/sec upload speed to the internal directories.
I hit roughly the same boundaries if I try to stream some videos via the web interface of the VLC media player targeting my tablet
Reading through your post these seem to be quite normal speeds for 54mbps if I understand it right, but can anything be done to improve this still?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. During the posting of this thread, I didn't know about the WiFi Tether Beta project found at this link:
http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/downloads/list
Not only can you get an "N" connection (Though actual speed is dependent on certain factors, but you can also get Infrastructure (Non Ad Hoc) mode to work with it, depending on your phone model. If you have an LG Revolution, use the Optimus S phone in the selection menu and you can get your phone to be a standard Access Point.
Note, though, that it is a known issue among phones, which research I just completed a bit ago, the that app can cause your phone to randomly reboot, but usually you can get a solid 20-30 minutes out of it before that happens. If nothing else, use it for 15 mins, shut it down, restart it, and go.
Other than that particular app, I've yet to come across one that goes above G speeds of 54Mbps.
At least for the market apps. If you have Verizon phone with the 4gHotSpot app, non-rooted phone, and pay for the HotSpot plan, that will also do N speeds via Wifi Tethering.
-Cybie
well, thank you for your reply, I'll do my homework on the beta thingie then. Every once a while I did some research about the subject, but always came out empty handed. Hope it works; Thumbs up
*** unfortunately testing will be postponed for a while as I just realised that though both receiving devices are Ns and rooted but the hosting device is an S-ON Htc chacha, and though I read about the firmware downgrade root possibility half of the screen is black because of a fall..
And in the upcoming weeks its just not an option for me to have it be taken to a repair..
But when it happens, I'd happily post my findings about it!
With Google Drive, we have access to cloud stored documents and files. Now it is time to store apps in the cloud as well. With the size restrictions of the Nexus 7, what better way to shut Apple and Microsoft up than with cloud stored apps. There's no need for expandable on device storage when you can simply upgrade your Google Drive plan, or whatever Google can come up with, to store unlimited apps and app data.
Join the discussion on productforums.google
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
Your apps are already stored on the android market.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I'm gonna guess you haven't thought this out much.
If you mean, no more installing apps to local storage, then that's a lot of bandwidth there to 'use' apps, buddy.
What you're probably thinking of are webapps, and those have been around for years.
Yes. Im thinking of doing away with the need for locally stored apps. And bandwith wouldn't be an issue for Google. Think about how many people are streaming youtube videos and music from Google Play. I'm sure that would be the least of their worries. All I'm saying is that cloud stored apps would kill the selling points of all the other manufacturers on the topic of expanded storage.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
reuthermonkey said:
I'm gonna guess you haven't thought this out much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I can see plenty of benefit for something like this. There are plenty of apps that I infrequently use, and that are small enough to be dynamically downloaded and executed as required, or at the very least archived back to the cloud and recalled as required.
Yes, you could argue that these could be webapps, but these frequently don't have the necessary system permissions to provide the required functionality when compared to a 'native' app.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
@OP
Look up Chrome OS and learn the reasons why it failed. Therein lies your answer.
OK, a short answer: responsiveness trumps storage savings. Local apps are more responsive than cloud-based apps. QED.
There are certain software categories that are/will be cloud-based. Those you normally use, that require high degree of interaction and responsiveness, are not among them.
e.mote said:
@OP
Look up Chrome OS and learn the reasons why it failed. Therein lies your answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With Chrome OS, you're talking about a computer operating system. The reason Chrome OS will fail is because people would rather not carry a laptop around that does nothing more than their tablet. Google realized that, hints why the release of the Nexus 7 and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. The reality is that Google is moving toward everything being stored in the cloud, one baby step at a time. We can already store music and videos in the cloud from Google Play Music, and Google Play Videos. We can store books and documents as well. All of which can be accessed straight from our Android devices. We're not talking about booting up into a web browser here, we're talking about having apps cued to run from the cloud rather than fill up unnecessary space on limited devices. Take the new Batman game for Android for example. The game data is about 1.3 gb. You're using less than 25% of that while you're playing the game because there are parts of the game saved on your device that you have yet to get to or have already completed. So what's the point of that data being there if it is not being used? Another way to look at it would be apps that you rarely use. Why have them stored locally if you use them once in a while like apps that make the best profile pic on Facebook?
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
>The reality is that Google is moving toward everything being stored in the cloud, one baby step at a time
Your version of reality is a bit different than mine, apparently. In my version, bandwidth costs money (not Google's, mine), much more money than additional storage. There's also such a thing as latency.
>We can already store music and videos in the cloud from Google Play Music, and Google Play Videos.
You must like playing crappy DRM-infested streaming-quality videos as opposed to fullHD ones. Good for you.
>we're talking about having apps cued to run from the cloud rather than fill up unnecessary space on limited devices.
Android has been raked over the coals for its "unsmooth" UI. Now, think of what happens when apps take a few more seconds to start-up each time.
I'm not sure how simpler I can say it, so I'll just say it again: RESPONSIVENESS TRUMPS STORAGE SAVINGS. Is that good enough, or do I need to translate it to Morse code?
e.mote said:
>The reality is that Google is moving toward everything being stored in the cloud, one baby step at a time
Your version of reality is a bit different than mine, apparently. In my version, bandwidth costs money (not Google's, mine), much more money than additional storage. There's also such a thing as latency.
>We can already store music and videos in the cloud from Google Play Music, and Google Play Videos.
You must like playing crappy DRM-infested streaming-quality videos as opposed to fullHD ones. Good for you.
>we're talking about having apps cued to run from the cloud rather than fill up unnecessary space on limited devices.
Android has been raked over the coals for its "unsmooth" UI. Now, think of what happens when apps take a few more seconds to start-up each time.
I'm not sure how simpler I can say it, so I'll just say it again: RESPONSIVENESS TRUMPS STORAGE SAVINGS. Is that good enough, or do I need to translate it to Morse code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree on all points.
i dont care about Google's bandwidth, but if my cable internet at home starts getting finicky or slows down during busy hour, my apps going to slow down too?
are you insane? LOL
solomonarnett said:
We're not talking about booting up into a web browser here, we're talking about having apps cued to run from the cloud rather than fill up unnecessary space on limited devices. Take the new Batman game for Android for example. The game data is about 1.3 gb. You're using less than 25% of that while you're playing the game because there are parts of the game saved on your device that you have yet to get to or have already completed. So what's the point of that data being there if it is not being used?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
in-game experience: finish quest! yay! let's roam the open world on my batcycle to *HITINVISIBLEWALL* - "please wait while Google download this area of the map for you"
in other words; web app doesn't work. media files on one hand, such as movies or music, is GREAT for streaming. that's why Play works (to a certain degree). but games, facebook, quick office, and every other apps? streaming online? people b1tch loud enough when they have to sign-in to the internet when they want to play games (see Nexus 7 forum - app and themes - Gaming thread), and they scream even louder when they have to be connected to the internet ALL THE WHILE playing a game. you want to store some files in the cloud?
let me get this straight - i'm a cloud supporter. i do. i love clouds. most of my stuff is in the cloud or media server and i only have the 8gb version. but your idea of putting *everything* in the cloud... is about a decade too early.
maybe in 2022 most north americans will be using Google Fiber at their homes, and 90% of world's population have affordable access to considerably fast broadband, then it'll fly.
R3dbeaver said:
in-game experience: finish quest! yay! let's roam the open world on my batcycle to *HITINVISIBLEWALL* - "please wait while Google download this area of the map for you"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OnLive.
It isn't quite there yet IMO, but in a couple of years time, it will be (or another similar service anyway).
Of course, it won't be a panacea for all, since there are always going to be places where you can't get online (either physically, or economically), but I can certainly see games architects designing more and more for a thin client "cloud" experience.
Regards,
Dave
I'm greedy and live in a physical world,,look what happened to that poor chap who lost his entire digital life when his apple account got hacked.Still don't trust having my stuff on a server without a physical back up
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
>OnLive.
The bulk of a game's size is in its art/gfx assets. Larger resolution + more details = ever larger assets. It's more efficient to store (and render) them locally. OnLive's USP is that it does server-based renders, which allows any low-end device to play any high-end game. That's fine, but there is no magic, and there is no free lunch.
With OnLive, the bottleneck is shifted from the local storage/CPU to your Internet connection. The result is that bandwidth and latency are now your bottlenecks. As already said, storage is much cheaper than bandwidth. If you're buying the N7 to save money, then having to subscribe to a cloud-based game outfit to work around its limitations is penny wise, pound foolish. You're better off buying a tablet with more storage capability in the first place.
OnLive, or more generically, "game streaming," is not a panacea. Both bandwidth and latency are issues, and they can't be entirely removed, but only mitigated. Read the below for more detail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnLive#Post-launch
solomonarnett said:
Yes. Im thinking of doing away with the need for locally stored apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool thing. That's not a new idea though.
And bandwith wouldn't be an issue for Google. Think about how many people are streaming youtube videos and music from Google Play.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not Google's bandwidth that I'm thinking of. They've got terabits of bandwidth available to them, and they're more than happy to deploy more whenever they want.
Your cell phone network, on the other hand, has limited resources. From radio spectrum to tower deployment costs to backhaul to overloaded towers, the bottleneck is not and will never be Google's abilities. The realities of the market are the bottleneck.
I'm sure that would be the least of their worries. All I'm saying is that cloud stored apps would kill the selling points of all the other manufacturers on the topic of expanded storage.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely agree. But when you figure out a way to drop latencies down to 5ms over a wireless medium at 2 miles, i'll tell you a great way to have apps be stored entirely in the cloud.
Til then, you're limited by two very, very hard limits: Bandwidth, and latency.
I don't even need to mention data caps. So until things change, you may need to revise your plans or slim down those expectations until the market can make those a reality.
I think there was a similar discussion somewhere in this board.
anyways, i wouldnt agree with what you wanted still. While cloud apps are very nice to have, a lot of people have mentioned the processing speed as well.
It is impossible to beat local storage access speed no matter what kind of connections you have. Not to mention wifi/mobile connection is not available in quite a lot of places. (Heck, my basement is a deadzone already for mobile connection, although i still have wifi at home but you get the idea) Instead of paying 60 bucks for data everymonth, id rather have bigger local storage even it may cost a 100 or even 200 bucks more >_<, thats like what.....2-3 months of "cloud"?
People whine when it takes 2 seconds to open an app... Imagine downloading the app first..
When the Chromecast launched, I was under the impression that it was merely an Android device that was limited to streaming video/browser pages and would behave on a wireless network just like an Android device. However, I received a unit this morning and it's failing to connect to the Internet. Does anyone know of any special requirements that the Chromecast has? It obviously needs 802.11g (which we have), but I can't imagine it would need any special ports open.
I know this isn't a Q&A forum, but I figured it would be important to have this figured out and documented before millions of college students return to school over the next few months and network administrators freak out when Google provides no answers.
I've tried the chromecast on two different college networks, both without success.
From what I'm aware, the cc doesn't support 802.11. Also, many universities block multicast which also blocks chrome.
Any place with a NAC is doubtful at this point that will work
Also, most hotels will not work at this point as many have nacs, thus there is no way to log into the network. Hopefully Google comes up with a fix
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3213084?hl=en
If you do not have access to your router settings, or if you are attempting to connect through a guest, hotel or public network with AP/client isolation, you will be unable to set up your Chromecast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you both so much for your help. It's really disappointing being the bad guy that says students can't use X device on the network, I hope Google figures out another way to operate Chromecast.
It would be nice if they could make a way to enter in a pw after connecting. I think they will have a lot of complaints about this
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Unfortunately this is less likely a Google issue. The university and public wifis behave the way they do so people cannot see other peoples shasred devices easily, amongst other reason. Being so the ip address will be isolated and devices can't see each other.
One thing you can do is set up a router in your dorm. This is likely against protocol but they might not know
Also, you could try to share your Mac's WiFi connection, if you have one. This would potentially put your devices on the same subnet but I can't confirm. The DHCP leasing might still be handled by the university network.
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
tommytomatoe said:
Unfortunately this is less likely a Google issue. The university and public wifis behave the way they do so people cannot see other peoples shasred devices easily, amongst other reason. Being so the ip address will be isolated and devices can't see each other.
One thing you can do is set up a router in your dorm. This is likely against protocol but they might not know
Also, you could try to share your Mac's WiFi connection, if you have one. This would potentially put your devices on the same subnet but I can't confirm. The DHCP leasing might still be handled by the university network.
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's funny that you mention that, I'm the guy that shuts down rogue access points in the dorms. Although I can't speak for all universities, most (if not all) of the universities that we are in contact with have banned personal APs because of the interference they cause (on 2.4GHz, I usually let 5.0 slide by, but Chromecast doesn't use 5.0). I believe that sharing your Mac's wifi connection would work, but AD-HOC networks are going to cause the same problem.
I'm actually stunned that Google would use a P2P connection over wireless. It represents a huge security threat, which is exactly why universities and businesses block it.
Is your network sophisticated enough to manually permit individuals to let their own devices see each other while connected to the campus network?
Why not plug in a router to your dorm rooms ethernet.. Now you have your own wifi...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
waiters said:
Why not plug in a router to your dorm rooms ethernet.. Now you have your own wifi...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because you didn't read post #7.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta