Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
First, modern tech made in the last 7-8 years uses a digital over-air signal, not an analog cellular signal.
Second, the market is hot because everyone wants to go wireless on everything. Why should you have to sit down and type out posts on your gigantic PC at home when you can do the same thing from your phone while you're in the checkout line at Wal-Mart? Innovation is what makes this market so incredible. Not everyone needs a gigantic PC on a desk. It's much more feasible to have a mobile phone instead.
Third, it is a luxury, but more and more people consider it a necessity now. Prices on basic phones are low enough that it can be considered a basic need for most people.
I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or not.
I only mentioned the age of the technology as it is still fairly new in the grand scheme of things. The means in which the signal is propagated is honestly irrelevant to the average consumer and wasn't the intention of my post. All they know is that phones now sound clearer and have larger coverage ranges. (It's still using "cells" which makes it cellular by the way.
) If you want to discuss the differences between TDMA/CDMA/GSM/et cetera we can do that.
Just because something has become more accessible doesn't make it a necessity. If cellular telephones were a necessity, would the aesthetics of a case really deem a multi-million dollar lawsuit? This is about as silly as Levi-Strauss suing Dockers because Dockers made a pair of denim pants that are blue. Either pair of pants would serve their function of covering legs, just as a phone serves the function of making/receiving phone calls/data.
This is all about marketing dollars, not determining how Apple can save the human race by keeping their all-important design sacred and without reproach. I can appreciate aesthetics as much as the next fellow, but these guys really need to give it a rest.