Difference In Phones

[RJB]

I have been wondering this for a while and I am still not very sure why this is?? Why do GSM companies have such smaller and lighter phones than CDMA companies for the most part??

[KevinJames]

huh? I just came back from Best Buy. I wasn't there to buy a phone, but I usually stop and peruse the selections. Both CDMA & GSM vendors had flip phones that were equally compact. In fact, if anything, it seems that iDen phones are the bulkiest of the bunch but that is changing fast.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Originally Posted by KevinJames huh? I just came back from Best Buy. I wasn't there to buy a phone, but I usually stop and peruse the selections. Both CDMA & GSM vendors had flip phones that were equally compact. In fact, if anything, it seems that iDen phones are the bulkiest of the bunch but that is changing fast.

Just take a look at the i830 and new i860, both are very compact and are about the same size as the V600.

[Oppie]

One reason this may appear to be the case is that many cdma phones still have analog capabilities. The techies out there can tell you why this adds bulk. Many of the new CDMA phones that are digital only are nearly as small as the GSM phones.

Just an opinion: when a person is talking on one of the super-small GSM bar-style phones, it looks ridiculous!

Originally Posted by azcellphonejunkie Just take a look at the i830 and new i860, both are very compact and are about the same size as the V600.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by Oppie Just an opinion: when a person is talking on one of the super-small GSM bar-style phones, it looks ridiculous!

Thank you!

If the phone only reaches from your ear to your earlobe... you need a bigger phone.

[MOTOhooligan]

Originally Posted by wgray8231 If the phone only reaches from your ear to your earlobe... you need a bigger phone.

Agreed... that is why I can pretty much only purchase clamshell style handsets from now on. The bar phones being produced these days just don't reach my mouth like my old Motorola v2397 used to.

[scotsboyuk]

It is interesting to see the difference in opinion over mobile phone design between Europe and America. Here small candybar mobiles are very popular, most new mobiles with that form factor have taken on a standard size, with most of them being similar in size to the Sony Ericsson K700i.

Clamshell mobiles are also rather popular, but those too have become a lot smaller, although my latest mobile, the SE V800, is a tad larger than normal due to it being 3G. It is still a lot smaller than the early 3G handsets thankfully.

[AprilFool]

Originally Posted by Ryanb4321 I have been wondering this for a while and I am still not very sure why this is?? Why do GSM companies have such smaller and lighter phones than CDMA companies for the most part??

Because the GSM business is much, much bigger than the CDMA business and there is also more competition (CDMA is a battle between the Qualcomm chipsets and Nokia phones). Companies make bigger R&D investments in GSM because a) they have to and b) because it tends to pay off better. The only company making huge R&D investments in CDMA is Qualcomm and they don't really even have to... they are like Microsoft.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Originally Posted by AprilFool Because the GSM business is much, much bigger than the CDMA business and there is also more competition (CDMA is a battle between the Qualcomm chipsets and Nokia phones). Companies make bigger R&D investments in GSM because a) they have to and b) because it tends to pay off better. The only company making huge R&D investments in CDMA is Qualcomm and they don't really even have to... they are like Microsoft.

I could be wrong, but I thought the CDMA versions of the Nokias were using a Qualcomm Chipsets now. Someone either confirm or correct this for me please.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by AprilFool Because the GSM business is much, much bigger than the CDMA business and there is also more competition (CDMA is a battle between the Qualcomm chipsets and Nokia phones). Companies make bigger R&D investments in GSM because a) they have to and b) because it tends to pay off better. The only company making huge R&D investments in CDMA is Qualcomm and they don't really even have to... they are like Microsoft.

Good non-answer AprilFool. The real answer is that AMPS makes the CDMA phones heavier.

AprilFool has shown up all of a sudden last night and must be the world's biggest fan of GSM. Welcome to the forums!

[AprilFool]

Originally Posted by azcellphonejunkie I could be wrong, but I thought the CDMA versions of the Nokias were using a Qualcomm Chipsets now. Someone either confirm or correct this for me please.

Nope, Nokia are the David against Qualiath.

[AprilFool]

Originally Posted by wgray8231 Good non-answer AprilFool. The real answer is that AMPS makes the CDMA phones heavier.

A CDMA implementation takes more silicon. This disadvantage is diminishing as more applications are integrated into the chipsets. The portion of protocol specific will go down and the playing field will be even. Another disadvantage is CDMA carriers opted to use GPS to meet FCC's E911 requirement for positioning. GSM decided to use a purely SW based solution for now. They are forced to go to GPS as the accuracy of the SW based solution is not good enough for FCC in the long term unless a miracle happens... which sometimes they do.

AMPS also adds a few extra passive components but the weight savings for not having AMPS are small. The extra weight typically comes as a result of the carriers talk/standby time requirements... AMPS is not being further develop so any increases in carrier requirements are met with a larger capacity battery rather than a more efficient AMPS portion of the chipset.

But really, the IS-95/IS-2000 CDMA industry does not have the same cash power behind it that the globally dominating GSM does. That also indirectly adds bulk. The good news is some of the manufacturers are improving handset designs by leaps and bounds. Motorola is reinventing themselves and are showing great promise. Not to mention the Korean players. And once WCDMA/UMTS is the prevalent technology globally lots of great things will come from Japan (unless one is a protectionist...). Of course only some of the carriers will be in the WCDMA camp right away. Some (TMO) may wait for HSDPA due to limited bandwidth they have and some will stick with Qualcomm.

I am a Verizon user myself.

AprilFool

[azcellphonejunkie]

Originally Posted by AprilFool Nope, Nokia are the David against Qualiath.

Nice, I like that answer. Thanks for correcting me.

[larry]

Originally Posted by wgray8231 Good non-answer AprilFool. The real answer is that AMPS makes the CDMA phones heavier. AprilFool has shown up all of a sudden last night and must be the world's biggest fan of GSM. Welcome to the forums!

Also it's good to have another So. Cal member on here since there aren't that many of us.

[AprilFool]

Originally Posted by larry Also it's good to have another So. Cal member on here since there aren't that many of us.

Thanks Larry. Is that because people here are generally happy with their cellphones and have no reason to look for more information?

[larry]

I think most So. Californians are too busy to hang out in wireless forums.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Originally Posted by larry I think most So. Californians are too busy to hang out in wireless forums.

I think most people in general are too busy to hang out here. It is us "special" people who find the time to do it. Note Special=Geeks in this example

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by AprilFool Another disadvantage is CDMA carriers opted to use GPS to meet FCC's E911 requirement for positioning. GSM decided to use a purely SW based solution for now. They are forced to go to GPS as the accuracy of the SW based solution is not good enough for FCC in the long term unless a miracle happens... which sometimes they do.

How is this a disadvantage? What do the GSM phones do, guess based on tower location?

Originally Posted by AprilFool But really, the IS-95/IS-2000 CDMA industry does not have the same cash power behind it that the globally dominating GSM does. That also indirectly adds bulk. The good news is some of the manufacturers are improving handset designs by leaps and bounds. Motorola is reinventing themselves and are showing great promise. Not to mention the Korean players. And once WCDMA/UMTS is the prevalent technology globally lots of great things will come from Japan (unless one is a protectionist...). Of course only some of the carriers will be in the WCDMA camp right away. Some (TMO) may wait for HSDPA due to limited bandwidth they have and some will stick with Qualcomm.

GSM has more power partially because it's older, thus more widespread. The more popular technology isn't always the best (remember VHS/Beta). True, Qualcomm has a firm grip on their technology, but I would hardly compare them to M$. There's nothing wrong with turning a profit for your own work, but Qualcomm hasn't been working to eliminate their competition. What's wrong with proprietary technology when it's just as good as the rest?

Originally Posted by AprilFool I am a Verizon user myself.

So the truth comes out. You know, Torvalds doesn't use Windows.

[AprilFool]

Originally Posted by wgray8231 How is this a disadvantage? What do the GSM phones do, guess based on tower location?

The original question was "Why do GSM companies have such smaller and lighter phones than CDMA companies for the most part??"

A GPS receiver and antenna need real estate on the circuit board. The mobile-assisted time difference measurement (a geeky way to do triangulation) does not. GPS also costs money. If you have it integrated in the chipset it's not that much but if it is a discrete solution from one of the few suppliers the parts alone cost several dollars even when you are buying tens of millions of them.

Originally Posted by wgray8231 Qualcomm hasn't been working to eliminate their competition. What's wrong with proprietary technology when it's just as good as the rest?

Nothing wrong with propriatary technology, I was trying to make a comparison to M$ because they are both superior to competition, business-wise. Did not mean to imply they play dirty... I might get into trouble if I said that :-)

Originally Posted by wgray8231 So the truth comes out. You know, Torvalds doesn't use Windows.

Just being practical. VZW has the best voice service in my area. I get to see all video streaming and what not while in the office. A good movie and a glass of wine after a day at work suits me better than continuing to geek off around the house with my cell phones. So the (cellphone) toys typically stay at work and a good voice service gets me through the weekend. For business it has been VZW, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Cingular and some others for a brief moment here and there.

TheFool