I know how much you love to argue, but I would recommend listening to ragnar. He know what he's saying.

I agree with the arguments and benefits of A-GPS, but my standalone bluetooth sirf-III GPS gets a lock in 20-30 seconds, whilst driving. Quite often it goes months without being used, and when I do I just turn it on and throw it on the dashboard. And I hardly ever charge it.

Nokia should keep the A-GPS, but scrap the P.o.S. GPS chipset they use and put a semi-decent one in the N900 (or whatever)

Completely wrong.
Smart solution is Sirf III chip + network assistance.
Not smart solution is not Sirf III chip + network assistance.

I was really surprised to hear from Skyhook manager that a new 3G iPhone would feature network powered gps as a previous model.
So my interest in new 3G iPhone vanished immediately.

Today new new 3G iPhone model is announced due to October 2008.

So Texrat, saying has no value to us.
What counts is state-of-the-art Sirf III chip based navigation as
a standard in 2008.
I don't buy semi-solutions, low quality by-products in GPS navigation.

Just published new semantic magazines - TomTom, Navteq, Samsung, Asus (previously 3D GPS navigation) to let you see and compare
state-of-the-art solutions in gps business.

What is a nighmare for customers is to buy old solutions and have to
convince friends over and over again, that the older is better.

Yesterday, late in night , lurked Asusworld Magazine once again
for hot Eee PC with 7" LCD screen and oversized LCD cover.
On all 10 pictures, LCD screen was set from backside, not to let
customers to see and discover 7" LCD screen is not half in size of
the Eee PC .
What a shame to offer such assisted LCD (ALCD) a real-nightmare.

The same feelings come with any assisted- solution, semi-real-quality.
Pls, never ask me to buy any pseudo-quality assisted solution when
I have already got 5 full GPS $100 car navigation devices and new Sirf III come well under $100 price limit.

So I really don't love to .... buy semi-half-developed, half-quality solutions and gizmos as it makes me foul to use such semi-developed solution.
For the same reason I don't advise you to swap your new LCD for mono solution.

Darius

I don't know what you're talking about LCDs, but once AGPS based on Wi-Fi/cellular networks works absolutely fine for me. Fast fix, uses standard radio antennas, and adds no physical size.

The time to first fix is what sells me on VZNavigator for $10 over an N810. It can get a GPS fix, traffic, and maps in just a few seconds. Just because the iPhone 3G doesn't have real turn-by-turn directions doesn't mean that it can't eventually (as shown by TomTom assuming it's not vaporware).

Darius, this is what you said in your first post:

This is the reply you got in the second post:

I think that is where the thread should have finished really as those are almost certainly the answer. Perhaps not what we want to hear, but true nonetheless.

I quite agree.

I'd like to see your comparison, do you have a link for it please?

(cut for clarity)
...
you said :
"
I think that is where the thread should have finished
"
It's not a good idea.

you said
"
This is the reply you got in the second post:

Quote:
probably price, size, battery life and general avaibility
"

I don't buy your probability.
I need exact answer to my exact questions.

Why aGPS in N810, 3G iPhone ?
Why not Sirf III in N810, 3G iPhone ?

I am asking just of curosity as a developer of LBS solutions (Navteq).
I have offered gps solutions for iPhone/Apple (Skyhook)
better, faster, more efficient algorithms for AGPS .

Triangulation algorithm based gps navigation is as old as cell phone.
I need exact grounds staying behing making such wrong solutions
in hot products.

I don't blame Nokia, don't blame Apple,
just need to know , what's wrong.

"
Quote:
probably price, size, battery life and general avaibility
"

price is not an issue - Sirf III chip $10 a piece (wholesale price much lower)

size is not an issue - what is a size of aGPS chip in N810, iPhone ?
have you done size comparison ?

battery life is not an issue - you can still offer 2 models , one with full GPS and one aGPSed.

general availability - ?????? what do you mean ?

just visit GPS semantic www pages at
http://www.tinyurl.com/iDarius

to see , there was no problem to implement full Sirf III chip based navigation into tens (mayby hundreds) models of PDAs, cell phones,
already on a market.

Think twice.
aGPS was offered for non-gps enabled iPhone by Skyhook
as add-on, not mainstream gps solution.
The idea was great and it worked as it worked.

Today Apple released gps enabled iPhone and still not full GPS (Sirf III).

None of the above listed issues by you is valid.
Just visit Sirf III forum and board for smart gps solutions.

To me aGPS is still 3-wheel + 1 leg solution for car industry.

So please don't it personally.
As a developer I just need to know real grounds staying behind not
general probability comments , like yours.

And pls don't take it personally.
I just need and must to know
as my business strategy in LBS is exactly based on a exact and full
explanation of this issue.

I don't buy - improved GPS threads.
Sirf III GPS doesn't need any improvement.
It just works fine and is very cheap.


Darius

You are not going to get exact answers regarding Nokia HW design choices on a community forum. The answer was given to you as far as people here know and especially can talk in public.

I am pretty sure though that the decision was not made to generate traffic on ITT and Maemo Bugzilla but rather there are some rational (from Nokia POV) reasons behind the decision. Who knows, maybe they had a hundred thousand TI GPS chips lying around and coin toss sent them N810 way.

Then you should take it up with Nokia. If your business case is valid I'm sure they are willing to listen to you and provide the necessary information. Community forum is just not the place for it even though there are several Nokia employees here. I think they are on pretty tight leash though

What I said is you should take a break from your militant contrarian attitude once in a great while and listen to others instead of kneejerking into argument (typically based on your misunderstanding). Ragnar knows what he's talking about. You appear not to so much.

And it's not "AGPS vs. Sirf Star III". It's "TI chipset vs. <insert any other chipset here>". AGPS can (and should, if possible) be used with _any_ chipset.

The sentence makes no sense. AGPS is not 'old solution'. It's not even a crutch. The way the GPS system works there is _no way_ to get instant lock (particularly from cold start) without using assisted GPS. It's _always_ useful to have AGPS, or any system that does the same (=>pre-loading data that one would otherwise have to wait for).

$10 is in this context an enormous amount of money. Device producers are always trying to shave off a cent here, a cent there, if they can, because it all adds up to the bottom line. In any case, nobody in this thread will know the authoritative answer to the choices, there's just a good guess that the cost, plus the power (battery) requirements are both lower for the TI chipset. But we're not Nokia.

It's probably not much use to keep replying though.. so I won't bother after this one.

No more problems ?

aot said:

"
Who knows, maybe they had a hundred thousand TI GPS chips lying around and coin toss sent them N810 way.
"

mayby.
and what about AGPS in new 3G iPhone ?
both supplied by TI ?

To Texrat:
Stop poetry (typically, misunderstanding, appear ).

and just give clear answer if you can.
If you don't know answers just give up and stop taking it personally.

I just need to (must) know exact answers as a matter of business strategy.

One full clear answer by a knowing man, that's all what I need.

Sirf III gps chip works in so many cell phones, PDAs, car navigations world-wide, so there must be something very special in not selecting
Sirf III for N810 and iPhone (mayby market share competition ???)

I don't say AGPS is not ok under special conditions,
so why not assisted-Sirf III GPS .

If you can't disclose such info into public, just email me.

(3-wheel + 1-leg vs. 4-wheel vs. 4-wheel + 1-leg car solution)

But personally I don't have anything against 3-wheel cars.

thanks
darius