|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > October 2007 > iPhone the 21st Century Edsel
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
iPhone the 21st Century Edsel
|
|
| IMHO IIRC 2007-10-16, 10:33 pm |
| In news:im-3B9206.12375316102007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net,
Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> most large cities have it now. the other day i stopped in 4 different
> places and 3 of 4 times got a free signal without relying on old
> fashioned cell technology.
>
> it will come to your area in time, just hang on. it's the pc revolution
> all over again.
>
> one of the very cool features of the iphone as you drive... in "real
> time" you can SEE open signals, so if you don't get one where you first
> stop, just drive up a few blocks and you are online.
>
>
> and a very popular model to this day, it shows apple really thinks about
> people and creativity, they don't think like a "factory".
The iMac G3/500 Flower Power: Introduced Feb 22, 2001 ~ Discontinued July
18, 2001.
500 MHz processor, 16 MB ram, 15 inch CRT with 800X600 resolution and 20 GB
hard drive.
No wonder Apple users think the iPhone is so wonderful. lol
>
> what? apple will fix voice dialing that doesn't work well "yet" on
> current phones..... they just aren't ready to do it yet. In 10 years,
> all voice dialing will work similar to how apple ends up doing it, not
> anyone else, apple has full control over those sorts of things.
Voice dial on my five year old cell phone works just fine.
I assume you mean that Apple has to fix voice dialing that doesn't work
"yet" on the current iPhone.
That they just aren't ready to do it yet, because Apple users don't really
want or need voice dialing.
> look at visual voice mail, that's how it should work, but no other phone
> can do it, but all phones in 10 years will copy the apple approach.
And eventually Apple will copy other cell phones ability to voice dial.
:D
| |
| George Kerby 2007-10-16, 10:33 pm |
|
On 10/16/07 5:38 PM, in article
xqmdndsigcLhoIjanZ2d
nUVZ_rfinZ2d@adelphi
a.com, "Scott" <how.do@you.do>
wrote:
> Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in
> news:im-C5A8AA.16021516102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>
> Both phones are programmed to the same number?
Crap! You caught it before I could respond.
This should be good...
| |
|
| In article <f7adnfU- ZdRmbI7anZ2dnUVZ_jed
nZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-44B93B.01330615102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
> Sure it does.
If it did, "iPod killer" wouldn't have become a term of mockery.
> That is, everybody except Apple. With Amazon now in the mix and
> offering uncrippled downloads at a lower price than Apple, the whole
> house of cards is about to tumble.
Why? Amazon's content works just fine on iPods. It might cost the iTunes
Music Store some sales, but iPod sales are far more important to Apple's
bottom line than music sales anyway.
Anyway, the iTMS still has the edge in convenience for iPod users (i.e.
80% of the market), and it has around 3x the selection. Also, if the
rumors are true Apple will shortly cut the price of its non-DRM tracks
and offer indie labels the option to ditch DRM.
> The hatred that Apple built by acting like it was the only game in
> town is about to be it's demise in terms of market dominance.
Most people seem rather fond of their iPods.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
| Scott 2007-10-16, 10:33 pm |
| George Kerby < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in news:C33ABF0F.3E6F1%
ghost_topper@hotmail
.com:
>
>
>
> On 10/16/07 5:38 PM, in article
> xqmdndsigcLhoIjanZ2d
nUVZ_rfinZ2d@adelphi
a.com, "Scott" <how.do@you.do>
> wrote:
>
>
> Crap! You caught it before I could respond.
>
> This should be good...
>
>
Yep- I'm dying to see the response.
| |
| Ness_net 2007-10-16, 10:33 pm |
| That sock puppet shit getting too much to handle for 'ya??
(and you talk about "memory") HAH!!
That LOW Oxford (whatever name used) credibility just went even lower....
"Bill Gates" <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message news:im-75C699.15353616102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i've never said i owned 2 8GB iphones, even 1 8GB. i own 2 4GB's and
> that has never changed.
>
> ed is loosing his memory?
| |
| Scott 2007-10-16, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-20A63E.21144216102007
@news.individual.net:
>
> Why? Amazon's content works just fine on iPods.
But inlike iTunes, it works just as well on others. With a viable source
of inexpensive music, the other players just scored big. And with Amazon's
clout in the market, it is only a matter of time before the record
companies give them the pricing deals and leave Apple hanging out to dry.
> It might cost the iTunes
> Music Store some sales, but iPod sales are far more important to Apple's
> bottom line than music sales anyway.
I don't expect you to get it, but once the iTunes stranglehold is broken,
the iPod becomes nothing more than a crippled mp3 player.
>
> Anyway, the iTMS still has the edge in convenience for iPod users (i.e.
> 80% of the market), and it has around 3x the selection.
Sorry- I have no need for yodeling and polkas (and the other obscure music
that makes up 98% of the iTunes catalog).
> Also, if the
> rumors are true Apple will shortly cut the price of its non-DRM tracks
> and offer indie labels the option to ditch DRM.
So they are running to catch up with Amazon- they will cave due to the
competition, just as they have every time they have encountered it.
>
>
> Most people seem rather fond of their iPods.
>
Most people are fond of their music- the delivery mechanism will easily
change once cheaper alternatives are there to replace them as they wear
out. Now that there is a substantial and relevent catalog available to
those players, it's game over for the iPod.
Of course, feel free to insert your uneducated opinion here. We've come to
expect it.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-16, 10:33 pm |
| In article <mr-A2D09A.18012016102007@News.Individual.NET>,
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> Taking things literally, are we?
Well, compare how many people have (and use) an iPod vs. how many people
have (and use) a cell phone.
I'd say that relatively speaking, most people don't have an iPod while
relatively speaking, most people do have a cell phone.
That's a huge gap you have to defend there, sandman.
| |
|
| In article <elmop-859C90. 22441116102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <mr-A2D09A.18012016102007@News.Individual.NET>,
> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, compare how many people have (and use) an iPod vs. how many people
> have (and use) a cell phone.
>
> I'd say that relatively speaking, most people don't have an iPod while
> relatively speaking, most people do have a cell phone.
>
> That's a huge gap you have to defend there, sandman.
I bought a couple iPhones and have never used the iPod feature.
The main strengths for me are the web and its ease of use for all the
other features.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
|
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:1q- dneVydJYi64janZ2dnUV
Z_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com...
> But inlike iTunes, it works just as well on others. With a viable source
> of inexpensive music, the other players just scored big. And with
> Amazon's
> clout in the market, it is only a matter of time before the record
> companies give them the pricing deals and leave Apple hanging out to dry.
So you really think that people are buying iPods because of the iTunes music
store? Most of the music on people's iPods come from their own CD
collection and from downloaded MP3's.
>
>
>
> I don't expect you to get it, but once the iTunes stranglehold is broken,
> the iPod becomes nothing more than a crippled mp3 player.
People don't buy that much music from iTunes....when you compare the number
of iPods sold to the number of songs sold on iTunes you get something like
23-35 songs per iPod...depending on how many iPods are still in use.
>
>
>
> Sorry- I have no need for yodeling and polkas (and the other obscure music
> that makes up 98% of the iTunes catalog).
So two of the four major record labels missing from Amazon is no big deal?
>
>
>
> So they are running to catch up with Amazon- they will cave due to the
> competition, just as they have every time they have encountered it.
Check out mp3newswire...they've documented 243 "iPod Killers" to date.
>
>
>
> Most people are fond of their music- the delivery mechanism will easily
> change once cheaper alternatives are there to replace them as they wear
> out. Now that there is a substantial and relevent catalog available to
> those players, it's game over for the iPod.
Again do you have better numbers that show that most people are in fact
feeling there iPods with music from the ITMS?
| |
|
| "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9rfRi.4721$K7.2066@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:1q- dneVydJYi64janZ2dnUV
Z_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> So you really think that people are buying iPods because of the iTunes
> music store?
some mac advocates (i'm looking at you polaski) here certainly claim that's
an important part of it (i personally don't think so).
<snip>
| |
|
| "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9rfRi.4721$K7.2066@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:1q- dneVydJYi64janZ2dnUV
Z_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> So you really think that people are buying iPods because of the iTunes
> music store? Most of the music on people's iPods come from their own
> CD collection and from downloaded MP3's.
Not if that media has any kind of DRM
>
>
>
> People don't buy that much music from iTunes....when you compare the
> number of iPods sold to the number of songs sold on iTunes you get
> something like 23-35 songs per iPod...depending on how many iPods are
> still in use.
And that "depending on how many iPods are still in use" leaves a LOT of
room for that number to grow. And I noticed that you fail to indicate
the time period you are analyzing.
>
>
>
> So two of the four major record labels missing from Amazon is no big
> deal?
Not for long.
>
>
>
> Check out mp3newswire...they've documented 243 "iPod Killers" to date.
Sorry- I don't have time to read a high school blog project. There is
much more conrete and realiable data available within the indistry.
>
>
>
> Again do you have better numbers that show that most people are in
> fact feeling there iPods with music from the ITMS?
In fact? Citation?
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| At 16 Oct 2007 12:45:29 +0200 Sandman wrote:
> Exactly. Most people value mobile music more than a mobile GPS.
Mobile music doesn't require a 480x320 screen. In fact, the iPod Shuffle
seems to suggest mobile music doesn't need a display at all!
Mobile MOVIES need a nice display, but I suspect more people are
interested in "location-based services" (GPS) than mobile movies on a
3.5" screen.
> Battery. My Nokia N95 has gps and sucks battery like hell.
That's such a BS argument. You can turn it off when not in use. WiFi
sucks battery quicker than GPS, but they left THAT in.
> I think it's funny that so many thinks that GPS is what people want in
> their mobile phones,
I'm not bashing the iPhone for not having a built-in GPS, I'm bashing it
for not being able to use an external Bluetooth GPS. Here's a "high-end"
device with all the necessary bluetooth hardware, and even has a special
custom version of Google Maps flaunted in the advertising and no one at
Apple thought to link the two together? I have a four-year old Nokia
that cost me $99 in 2003 that can use my external GPS with the crummy
java version of Google Maps. And when that phone was first produced
there were NO GPS applications made for it! The mere fact that it
supports a BT serial port allows Google Maps to use the GPS. A $500
circa-2007 phone can't manage that?
Of course not! Why? Because good ol' SJ is as beholden to AT&T as he is
to the record labels that are "allowing" you to make ringtones out of
songs you already bought for "just" $0.99. A GPS-enabled version of
Google Maps, constanly updating as you drive around, sucks geometrically
more data from the cell network than the static map you pull up for
directions to the nearest Calamari restaurant. I'll wager leaving out
GPS was part of a devil's deal with AT&T to keep data usage low (similar
to how the new mobile iTunes store works over WiFi but not EDGE! Nope-
let's not actually encourage you to pull any real amount of data over
that "unlimited" data plan!) Or perhaps the lack of GPS support is part
of a promise not to compete with AT&T's TeleNav subscription service.
> considering that pretty much no one of the most
> popular cell phones have GPS.
Virtually every other bluetooth phone offered by AT&T or T-Mobile can run
an external GPS and Google Maps. Only one high-profile $400 device seems
to lack that functionality.
Every Verizon and Sprint phone sold for the last few years has a carrier-
assisted GPS already built-in, and many can use downloadable GPS location
services (via subscription.)
That's only over 150 million phones with either internal or external GPS
capability in current use, the vast majority of which sell or were sold
for under $100...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| At 16 Oct 2007 16:33:59 +0000 ed wrote:
>
> what, specifically, don't you like about it-
It doesn't have a half-eaten fruit silkscreened on it's back. Period.
That's the only "UI" some people require...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| At 16 Oct 2007 10:42:17 +0100 Peter Hayes wrote:
> They were credits you should have passed on to your "clients".
Don't you remember? His "clients" were so impressed with the value of
their iPhones, they didn't they deserved the credits and bestowed them
upon Oxford for leading them down the path of cellular salvation.
To quote from the Book of Oxford; "Try to keep up..." ;-)
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| At 16 Oct 2007 17:38:52 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
> Both phones are programmed to the same number?
That would be easy enough to solve with Call Forwarding, but I suspect
neither of them even have a phone number. Remember, Oxy's "phone" is a
12" Macbook with a headset running VoIP over WiFi. He expected Apple's
iChat VoIP app to be available for iPhone by now, but Apple seems to have
deployed their iPhone dev team to punish hackers and sell you ringtones
cut from songs you already bought rather than add any useful new
features... ;-)
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| At 16 Oct 2007 09:59:08 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> I see battery issues with GPS phones. I've got a GPS in my car that I
> barely use.
My bluetooth GPS module runs 30 hours on a Nokia lithium phone battery.
Arguably, if you're using the phone for in-car navigation, you can leave
it plugged into the car lighter where battery life isn't an issue.
By the way, am I the only person sick of the "they left it out because
it's a battery-life problem" excuse to justify every feature missing from
the iPhone? WiFi is the biggest battery hog there is and they put THAT
in! GPS, 3G, bluetooth- all of these "battery problems" can be switched
off when not needed. Why not let the user make the decision whether or
not a useful feature is worth the tradeoff in battery life? If Steve
Jobs thinks 3G or GPS or whatever eats too much power, let him shut it
off on HIS iPhone- not yours!
| |
|
|
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:stidnVWG-LyVG4janZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> Not if that media has any kind of DRM
Oh please, how many CD's actually have copy protection?
>
>
> And that "depending on how many iPods are still in use" leaves a LOT of
> room for that number to grow. And I noticed that you fail to indicate
> the time period you are analyzing.
>
If you go by Steve Jobs numbers earlier this year "Thoughts on Music" its 23
songs per iPod (total number of songs sold/total number of iPods sold). If
half of the iPods ever sold were still in use that still leaves you 46
songs, if one fourth of all iPods ever sold were still in use that leaves
you with 92 songs per iPod. 92 songs is at most around 500MB of music.
Even the first iPod held 5GB of music. If you look at the sales data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod_sales.svg
Apple didn't sell there first million iPods until 2003 Q3 and they've sold
about 90 million over the passed two years. So you would assume that most
iPods purchased are relatively new and still in use.
>
> Sorry- I don't have time to read a high school blog project. There is
> much more conrete and realiable data available within the indistry.
>
So where is this concrete data? Out of the 243 MP3 players that the site
has reviewed, none of them have made a dent in the iPod market. Do you
doubt this?
>
> In fact? Citation?
Is the CEO of Apple a reliable enough reference?
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of
the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music
players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are
locked into buying music only from that company's music store. Is this true?
Let's look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store - they are the
industry's most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through
the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2
billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that's 22 songs purchased
from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today's most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the
average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or
under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes
store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is
unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It's
hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to
lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music
on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are
clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
| |
| Bill Gates 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> But inlike iTunes, it works just as well on others. With a viable source
> of inexpensive music, the other players just scored big. And with Amazon's
> clout in the market, it is only a matter of time before the record
> companies give them the pricing deals and leave Apple hanging out to dry.
actually this is better news for iPod users, not other MP3 makers. the
cheaper price will drive more people to ipods, not the other way around.
>
> I don't expect you to get it, but once the iTunes stranglehold is broken,
> the iPod becomes nothing more than a crippled mp3 player.
riigggght! who is suddenly going to come online and do it? every attempt
has failed. even MTV gave up, so basically iTunes will rule the majority
of downloaded music for the rest of our lifetimes.
>
> Sorry- I have no need for yodeling and polkas (and the other obscure music
> that makes up 98% of the iTunes catalog).
poor scott, knows he's lying. itunes has the finest collection of music
anywhere. amazon only has the leftovers.
>
> So they are running to catch up with Amazon- they will cave due to the
> competition, just as they have every time they have encountered it.
has amazon even sold 10 million songs yet? nope! itunes has sold 2
billion and probably sells more songs every minute than amazon does in a
day.
>
> Most people are fond of their music- the delivery mechanism will easily
> change once cheaper alternatives are there to replace them as they wear
> out. Now that there is a substantial and relevent catalog available to
> those players, it's game over for the iPod.
scott, why are you SO ANGRY at high quality products? don't you want the
best to win? I'm sure you like to root for the underdog, but at the
expense of a poorer quality music experience, that is unwise.
| |
|
| "Bill Gates" <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
news:im-00CA5B.23424716102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
<snip>
>
> scott, why are you SO ANGRY at high quality products? don't you want the
> best to win? I'm sure you like to root for the underdog, but at the
> expense of a poorer quality music experience, that is unwise.
see oxford, the thing is you don't really know what's the best and what's
poor quality, because you haven't used anything else and you're such a
fanboi. you even said you never had a cell phone, but as soon as apple
offers one, you go out and buy two for yourself the day it's released(!),
yet you talk about how much better it is than other phones and how superior
it is at playing music. you simply don't know, and i suspect it's a similar
situation w/ music players. i use an ipod regularly (bought it for my g/f,
but she rarely uses it), and it's perfectly fine, but there's nothing about
it that's really any better than a toshiba gigabeat or even my lg chocolate
for playing music... they all do a really nice job, and none of them really
stand out as a whole lot better than the others...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| At 17 Oct 2007 01:29:19 -0400 kdt wrote:
> It's
> hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough
to
> lock users into buying only iPods in the future.
No it's not. Forget the 3% and look at the other 97%. iTunes defaults
to the AAC (or whatever) format, so most of that 97%, or potentially
1000's of songs were likely ripped into the iPod's native format that
other players won't play unless the entire music collection is re-ripped
as .mp3. (I realize that .mp3s play fine on iPods, but most people have
likey ripped their entire CD collections using default settings.)
> And since 97% of the music
> on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users
are
> clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
True, but once their 400 CDs are ripped into iPod format, the
inconvenience factor makes switching undesirable.
| |
| Bill Gates 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> see oxford, the thing is you don't really know what's the best and what's
> poor quality, because you haven't used anything else and you're such a
> fanboi. you even said you never had a cell phone, but as soon as apple
> offers one, you go out and buy two for yourself the day it's released(!),
> yet you talk about how much better it is than other phones and how superior
> it is at playing music. you simply don't know, and i suspect it's a similar
> situation w/ music players. i use an ipod regularly (bought it for my g/f,
> but she rarely uses it), and it's perfectly fine, but there's nothing about
> it that's really any better than a toshiba gigabeat or even my lg chocolate
> for playing music... they all do a really nice job, and none of them really
> stand out as a whole lot better than the others...
incorrect. i can size up quality by just looking at an item. it's a
talent i've honed over the years. everyone agrees there is not a better
phone "for the price", than the iphone. sure there are a few missing
features of the 1.0 model. but when you add up all the current features,
the quality of the design, the deep nature of the software, extreme
battery life, etc, etc it wins every time.
i've used moto phones before and had people with blackberries, and they
hate them. screens are small, very poor UI, low battery life, etc.
i tend to look at the BIG PICTURE, not the little stuff like the LG
chocolate that might be fine for music or phone, but it's not good at
both like the iphone is, nor does it tie into high quality computing
equipment. so you are kinda stuck with windows with most phones so by
default they can't measure up to the high demands critics like me have.
| |
|
| "Bill Gates" <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
news:im-8ABEAD.00024717102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> incorrect. i can size up quality by just looking at an item.
ok, you've proven my point- you judge a book by it's cover w/out really
knowing anything about 'em.
<snip>
| |
|
|
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:DshRi.4318$ce.2337@fe089.usenetserver.com...
> At 17 Oct 2007 01:29:19 -0400 kdt wrote:
>
> to
>
> No it's not. Forget the 3% and look at the other 97%. iTunes defaults
> to the AAC (or whatever) format, so most of that 97%, or potentially
> 1000's of songs were likely ripped into the iPod's native format that
> other players won't play unless the entire music collection is re-ripped
> as .mp3. (I realize that .mp3s play fine on iPods, but most people have
> likey ripped their entire CD collections using default settings.)
most newer music players support .aac.
<snip>
| |
|
|
"Todd Allcock" < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in message
news:DshRi.4318$ce.2337@fe089.usenetserver.com...
> At 17 Oct 2007 01:29:19 -0400 kdt wrote:
>
> to
>
> No it's not. Forget the 3% and look at the other 97%. iTunes defaults
> to the AAC (or whatever) format, so most of that 97%, or potentially
> 1000's of songs were likely ripped into the iPod's native format that
> other players won't play unless the entire music collection is re-ripped
> as .mp3. (I realize that .mp3s play fine on iPods, but most people have
> likey ripped their entire CD collections using default settings.)
>
AAC is not "the iPod format". Apple had nothing to do with AAC being
created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Advan...o_Codin
g
"AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies
including Dolby, Fraunhofer IIS, AT&T, Sony and Nokia, and was officially
declared an international standard by the Moving Pictures Experts Group in
April 1997.
It is specified both as Part 7 of the MPEG-2 standard, and Part 3 of the
MPEG-4 standard. As such, it can be referred to as MPEG-2 Part 7 and MPEG-4
Part 3 depending on its implementation, however it is most often referred to
as MPEG-4 AAC, or AAC for short.
AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known formally as
ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997 as a new "part" (distinct from ISO/IEC
13818-3) in the MPEG-2 family of international standards.
It was updated in MPEG-4 Part 3 (known formally as ISO/IEC 14496-3:1999) in
1999. The reference software is specified in MPEG-4 Part 4 and the
conformance bitstreams are specified in MPEG-4 Part 5. A notable addition in
this version of the standard is Perceptual Noise Substitution (PNS).
HE-AAC (AAC with SBR) was first standardized in ISO/IEC 14496-3:2001/Amd.1.
HE-AAC v2 (AAC with Parametric Stereo) was first specified in ISO/IEC
14496-3:2001/Amd.4. [2]
The current version of the AAC standard is ISO/IEC 14496-3:2005 (with
14496-3:2005/Amd.2. for HE-AAC v2[3])
AacPlus v2 is also standardized by ETSI (European Telecommunications
Standards Institute) as TS 102005.[2]
The MPEG4 standard also contains other ways of compressing sound. These are
low bit rate and generally used for speech."
> are
>
> True, but once their 400 CDs are ripped into iPod format, the
> inconvenience factor makes switching undesirable.
>
>
Yeah it's really inconvenient even though every major DAP maker supports AAC
including
Sandisk -- the #2 player
Creative -- the #3 player
Microsoft -- the #4 player
Sony -- the PSP, and the Walkman
Also, many mobile phones support AAC including Sony Ericson, Nokia N-Series
and the latest BlackBerries.
Read the whole wikipedia article for more information.
>
| |
| Sandman 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| In article <wHgRi.2096$3g.1456@fe087.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> Mobile music doesn't require a 480x320 screen. In fact, the iPod Shuffle
> seems to suggest mobile music doesn't need a display at all!
Whatever that has to do with what I said...
> Mobile MOVIES need a nice display, but I suspect more people are
> interested in "location-based services" (GPS) than mobile movies on a
> 3.5" screen.
Uh, so?
>
> That's such a BS argument. You can turn it off when not in use.
I'm obviously talking about when it IS in use.
> WiFi sucks battery quicker than GPS, but they left THAT in.
GPS sucks more battery than wifi in my N95.
>
> I'm not bashing the iPhone for not having a built-in GPS, I'm bashing it
> for not being able to use an external Bluetooth GPS.
You're free to. In the end, most people doesn't care. At least not yet.
>
> Virtually every other bluetooth phone offered by AT&T or T-Mobile can run
> an external GPS and Google Maps.
Just not the ones that are popular, which are usually middle to
low-end phones.
--
Sandman[.net]
| |
|
| In article <1q- dneVydJYi64janZ2dnUV
Z_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-20A63E.21144216102007
> @news.individual.net:
>
>
>
> But inlike iTunes, it works just as well on others. With a viable
> source of inexpensive music, the other players just scored big.
People primarily buy the iPod because of the iPod, not because of the
iTunes Music Store.
> And with Amazon's clout in the market, it is only a matter of time
> before the record companies give them the pricing deals and leave
> Apple hanging out to dry.
Except that they'll keep buying iPods.
>
> I don't expect you to get it, but once the iTunes stranglehold is
> broken, the iPod becomes nothing more than a crippled mp3 player.
The vast majority of music on people's iPods doesn't come from the
iTunes Music Store. You really think most people are filling $250 iPods
with $20,000 worth of iTMS tracks? Most music on iPods is ripped from
CDs or, frankly, downloaded off of P2P networks. Virtually all of this
music is in formats that work on other players.
As such, the iTMS creates no significant lock-in effect with respect to
the iPod. And the fact that Apple is pushing labels to let them sell
DRM-free tracks (which will work on players other than iPods) suggests
that Apple doesn't have any particular interest in creating or
maintaining any lock-in effect.
>
> Sorry- I have no need for yodeling and polkas (and the other obscure
> music that makes up 98% of the iTunes catalog).
>
>
>
> So they are running to catch up with Amazon- they will cave due to
> the competition, just as they have every time they have encountered
> it.
Apple has been pushing for lower prices and no DRM for years. Apple made
its first non-DRM tracks available well before Amazon even announced its
new service.
BTW, the price drop is now official:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/app...confirms-itunes
-plus-price-drop-across-the-board
>
> Most people are fond of their music- the delivery mechanism will easily
> change once cheaper alternatives are there to replace them as they wear
> out. Now that there is a substantial and relevent catalog available to
> those players, it's game over for the iPod.
Once again, the popularity of the iTMS is driven by the popularity of
the iPod, not the other way around. As such, "cheaper alternatives" have
been here for years. Yet, the iPod is still dominant.
> Of course, feel free to insert your uneducated opinion here. We've come to
> expect it.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article <wHgRi.2096$3g.1456@fe087.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 16 Oct 2007 12:45:29 +0200 Sandman wrote:
>
>
> Mobile music doesn't require a 480x320 screen. In fact, the iPod Shuffle
> seems to suggest mobile music doesn't need a display at all!
>
> Mobile MOVIES need a nice display, but I suspect more people are
> interested in "location-based services" (GPS) than mobile movies on a
> 3.5" screen.
Honestly, I rather doubt it.
>
> That's such a BS argument. You can turn it off when not in use. WiFi
> sucks battery quicker than GPS, but they left THAT in.
>
>
> I'm not bashing the iPhone for not having a built-in GPS, I'm bashing it
> for not being able to use an external Bluetooth GPS.
It's a brand-new platform. Cries for the device to support absolutely
every feature out of the gate are actually encouraging poor development
practices. Implementing everything anyone can think of in the first
version of a product is almost always a way to ship an extremely buggy
product, with many largely useless features, late.
I'm not sure how likely it is that Apple will support GPS via Bluetooth
devices in the future... but they haven't said they won't, and the
device, as you point out, has all the necessary hardware.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
| Bill Gates 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2:35 pm, Bill Gates <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> no, i have a pretty good memory, and i'm pretty sure you mentioned
> having 8gb iphones... checking google...
>
> here (http://groups.google.com/group/comp...c.advocacy/msg/
> b1ab9d34e9907c24) you said:
> "Mine has 8GB of storage..."
>
> and here (http://groups.google.com/group/comp...c.advocacy/msg/
> 5013200807df7cfa), in response to 'tinman' saying ' am hoping they
> release a 16 GB model for $499. If so I'd buy it and give my 8 GB to
> my wife. Actually, I might still buy another 8 GB if I can get it
> cheaper than $399 (refurb).', you said, 'Yeah, I've been thinking the
> same thing all day.'
>
> and here, in june, (http://groups.google.com/group/
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/9ea2fda6968c513d), you said, "I was able to
> obtain 4 of them today, 3-4GB and 1-8GB ", which you contradicted
> here, in sept, (http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/
> msg/5d6116034d4f214c), when you said: "For me, I bought 2 of the 8GB
> and 2 4GB..." (which is kind of strange because just a few days after
> that you talk about having bought a total of 9- did you buy 5 that
> week or something?)
slow news day, ed?
| |
|
| In article <DshRi.4318$ce.2337@fe089.usenetserver.com>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 17 Oct 2007 01:29:19 -0400 kdt wrote:
>
> to
>
> No it's not. Forget the 3% and look at the other 97%. iTunes
> defaults to the AAC (or whatever) format, so most of that 97%, or
> potentially 1000's of songs were likely ripped into the iPod's native
> format that other players won't play unless the entire music
> collection is re-ripped as .mp3. (I realize that .mp3s play fine on
> iPods, but most people have likey ripped their entire CD collections
> using default settings.)
The iPod is far from being the only player that supports AAC.
Actually, though, the fact that there are other players which *don't*
support AAC would appear to refute the argument that there's any
serious lock-in effect maintaining iPod sales. If the key to selling an
iPod competitor was working seamlessly with the music libraries of
existing iPod customers, everyone else would be sure to support AAC.
Yet out of the top three selling non-iPod music players on Amazon, only
one (ironically, the Zune) supports AAC. And the two that don't, sell
better!
>
> True, but once their 400 CDs are ripped into iPod format, the
> inconvenience factor makes switching undesirable.
Please don't refer to the open AAC audio standard as "iPod format".
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| "Bill Gates" <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
news:im-2162C6.00594217102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> slow news day, ed?
haha, is that your only response to being caught in your lie(s)?
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-10-17, 4:33 am |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 16 Oct 2007 10:42:17 +0100 Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>
>
> Don't you remember? His "clients" were so impressed with the value of
> their iPhones, they didn't they deserved the credits and bestowed them
> upon Oxford for leading them down the path of cellular salvation.
>
> To quote from the Book of Oxford; "Try to keep up..." ;-)
:-)
His clients are probably as virtual as the various nyms he posts under.
Let's see,
Oxford, Bill Gates, Mark Thompson, none, Wegie, Mr T, Gene Jones.
Seven "clients", seven nyms. Coincidence? You decide...
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-10-17, 7:33 am |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <f7adnfU- ZdRmbI7anZ2dnUVZ_jed
nZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Why? Amazon's content works just fine on iPods. It might cost the iTunes
> Music Store some sales, but iPod sales are far more important to Apple's
> bottom line than music sales anyway.
I very much doubt it, certainly in the long term. The market for iPods
will saturate sometime, the market for music downloads will never
saturate.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
|
| In article <1i64k3e. 1s4zx2e1cniiqeN%noti
nuse2@btinternet.com>,
notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I very much doubt it, certainly in the long term. The market for iPods
> will saturate sometime, the market for music downloads will never
> saturate.
The market for iPods is potential very large. Its eventual size is
probably similar to the size of the cell phone market -- a couple of
billion people. And they'll mostly buy new devices every two or three
years, unless Apple somehow forgets how to innovate.
The market for music downloads might never saturate, as in people
deciding they have enough music and don't want any more. But being in
the music distribution business has other long-term problems, like the
strong continuing downward pressure on pricing, and people's ability to
go download the stuff illegally if they decide you're not offering good
value.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 12:33 pm |
| At 17 Oct 2007 08:38:32 +0200 Sandman wrote:
Shuffle[color=darkre
d]
>
> Whatever that has to do with what I said...
You bashed other MP3 phones for their tiny displays. That would
presuppose you think the large display on the iPhone makes it a better
MP3 player.
>
> GPS sucks more battery than wifi in my N95.
I can't refute that statement directly, as I don't own an N95, but I
think you're full of it, or have a defective N95. However, I've never
experienced that on either of my WiFi and GPS enabled PDAs. GPS is a
receive-only radio while Wi-Fi transmits. As a general rule,
transmitters consume far more power.
> Just not the ones that are popular, which are usually middle to
> low-end phones.
What part of "every bluetooth enabled phone" did you fail to understand?
As long as a phone supports java and BT SPP, it can use an external GPS
and Google Maps. The RAZR, for example, supports external GPS. Only 90
million or so have been sold.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-17, 12:33 pm |
| At 17 Oct 2007 02:13:19 -0400 kdt wrote:
> Yeah it's really inconvenient even though every major DAP maker
> supports AAC
Yeah, most only for the last year or so! ;-)
> including
>
> Sandisk -- the #2 player
> Creative -- the #3 player
> Microsoft -- the #4 player
> Sony -- the PSP, and the Walkman
Thanks to the iPod, today they do, yes. And most non-Apple manufacturers
who do support AAC, only do on certain high-end models, but support MP3
(and WMA) accross their entire line.
None of that refutes my statement- once you've ripped your collection
with iTunes' default settings, it's easier to stay with Apple. How many
Creative or Sandisk players would you have to try before finding an AAC-
compatible one? (I think Creative has three AAC players in their line of
50 or so!)
While AAC may have been a "standard" pre-iPod it was a completely ignored
one until Apple used it.
> Also, many mobile phones support AAC including Sony Ericson, Nokia N-
> Series and the latest BlackBerries.
Again, in a relatively recent response to Apple's marketplace domination
in digital audio players. You've essentially refuted your own argument-
if iTunes had no "lock-in" effect Apple's competitors wouldn't suddenly
be trying to break it, would they?
| |
| Scott 2007-10-17, 10:33 pm |
| "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:y4hRi.5111$5c.2806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:stidnVWG-LyVG4janZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
> Oh please, how many CD's actually have copy protection?
I just checked- 18 of the last 20 I've purchased do.
| |
| Oxford 2007-10-17, 10:33 pm |
| notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> His clients are probably as virtual as the various nyms he posts under.
>
> Let's see,
>
> Oxford, Bill Gates, Mark Thompson, none, Wegie, Mr T, Gene Jones.
>
> Seven "clients", seven nyms. Coincidence? You decide...
they are "pen names", not nyms.
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/pennames.html
and i have over 100 clients, but only about 10% have iphones as of today.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-10-17, 10:33 pm |
| In news:colalovesmacs-51CA94.20261117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> they are "pen names", not nyms.
>
> http://www.ivanhoffman.com/pennames.html
>
> and i have over 100 clients, but only about 10% have iphones as of today.
So about 90% of your clients are brighter than the rest. lol
| |
| Mayor of R'lyeh 2007-10-17, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:26:11 -0600, Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com>
wrote:
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
>they are "pen names", not nyms.
>
>http://www.ivanhoffman.com/pennames.html
>
>and i have over 100 clients, but only about 10% have iphones as of today.
I'm not sure that the Star Wars figures you have on your desk in your
mom's basement actually count as clients. 8)
| |
| Scott 2007-10-17, 10:33 pm |
| Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in
news:im-00CA5B.23424716102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> actually this is better news for iPod users, not other MP3 makers. the
> cheaper price will drive more people to ipods, not the other way
> around.
Not when one steps forward and starts a full-blown price war.
>
>
> riigggght! who is suddenly going to come online and do it? every
> attempt has failed. even MTV gave up, so basically iTunes will rule
> the majority of downloaded music for the rest of our lifetimes.
They won't be dominant by 2010.
>
>
> poor scott, knows he's lying. itunes has the finest collection of
> music anywhere. amazon only has the leftovers.
I'm not lying- if you knew how to pull the data, you'd be able to see
the same thing. Amazon's catalog has a much higher percentage of
relevent music than iTunes.
>
>
> has amazon even sold 10 million songs yet? nope! itunes has sold 2
> billion and probably sells more songs every minute than amazon does in
> a day.
Amazon just recently acquired the majority of their catalog and have
sold more in a comparable period of time than Apple did at their onset.
>
>
> scott, why are you SO ANGRY at high quality products?
I'm not mad at products- you seem to have cornered that market.
> don't you want
> the best to win? I'm sure you like to root for the underdog, but at
> the expense of a poorer quality music experience, that is unwise.
Poorer quality music experience? Please go on- I want to see you put
your entire leg i nyour mouth this time.
>
| |
|
| In article < q5OdnUcV1632WovanZ2d
nUVZ_rmjnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in
> news:im-00CA5B.23424716102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>
> Not when one steps forward and starts a full-blown price war.
Apple has far more clout in the relevant markets than Amazon. Why do you
believe Amazon will be offered better deals?
[snip]
>
> I'm not lying- if you knew how to pull the data, you'd be able to see
> the same thing. Amazon's catalog has a much higher percentage of
> relevent music than iTunes.
>
>
> Amazon just recently acquired the majority of their catalog and have
> sold more in a comparable period of time than Apple did at their onset.
So, Amazon sold more into an established market than Apple did into a
nearly nonexistent market. Why do you find this meaningful?
Why are you so obsessed with Amazon here? Apple has basically the same
number of non-DRM tracks (and a lot of other stuff besides), Apple has
the edge on convenience, and even if Amazon did steal sales from
Amazon's music store, it wouldn't matter all that much because just as
many people are going to buy iPods.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2F2B3C.23381517102007
@news.individual.net:
> In article < q5OdnUcV1632WovanZ2d
nUVZ_rmjnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
And[color=darkred]
before[color=darkred
]
the[color=darkred]
>
> Apple has far more clout in the relevant markets than Amazon. Why do
you
> believe Amazon will be offered better deals?
Because all of the major labels have come out and said that they don't
care to deal with Apple's pomposity and demands.
>
> [snip]
>
encountered[color=da
rkred]
in[color=darkred]
onset.[color=darkred]
>
> So, Amazon sold more into an established market than Apple did into a
> nearly nonexistent market. Why do you find this meaningful?
Because it is the very same argument all of you Jobs clones have been
shoving down our throats about iPhone sales.
| |
|
| In article < hNOdnS6mtu8PeovanZ2d
nUVZ_gudnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2F2B3C.23381517102007
> @news.individual.net:
>
> Because all of the major labels have come out and said that they
> don't care to deal with Apple's pomposity and demands.
Previously you said it was because Amazon had more "clout". Are you sure
you want to stick with this answer now?
>
> Because it is the very same argument all of you Jobs clones have been
> shoving down our throats about iPhone sales.
Who has compared iPhone sales to sales of cell phones coming out when
the market was still emerging? (Say, from the mid-80s.)
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-C5A8CC.01021818102007
@news.individual.net:
> In article < hNOdnS6mtu8PeovanZ2d
nUVZ_gudnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
>
> Previously you said it was because Amazon had more "clout". Are you sure
> you want to stick with this answer now?
Sorry- I never said that.
| |
|
| In article < hNOdnSimtu8JdIvanZ2d
nUVZ_gudnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-C5A8CC.01021818102007
> @news.individual.net:
>
>
> Sorry- I never said that.
From article <1q- dneVydJYi64janZ2dnUV
Z_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com>
"And with Amazon's clout in the market, it is only a matter of time
before the record companies give them the pricing deals and leave Apple
hanging out to dry."
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:znu-9C7E2D.01163118102007@news.individual.net:
> In article < hNOdnSimtu8JdIvanZ2d
nUVZ_gudnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> From article <1q- dneVydJYi64janZ2dnUV
Z_qGknZ2d@adelphia.com>
>
> "And with Amazon's clout in the market, it is only a matter of time
> before the record companies give them the pricing deals and leave
> Apple hanging out to dry."
>
When did "clout" become "more clout"? I guess we add reading comprehension
to your list of shortcomings.
| |
|
| In article < NoWdnb1W7_lEcYvanZ2d
nUVZ_uXinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-9C7E2D.01163118102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
> When did "clout" become "more clout"? I guess we add reading comprehension
> to your list of shortcomings.
The sentence clearly makes a connection between Amazon's clout, and
Amazon getting better deals than Apple. I suppose it could mean that you
think record labels would give Amazon better deals because Amazon had
*less* clout, but that's not how any reasonable individual would read
that sentence.
I guess we add inability to construct coherent arguments to your list of
shortcomings.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:znu-EA0C50.01335718102007@news.individual.net:
> In article < NoWdnb1W7_lEcYvanZ2d
nUVZ_uXinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> The sentence clearly makes a connection between Amazon's clout, and
> Amazon getting better deals than Apple. I suppose it could mean that
> you think record labels would give Amazon better deals because Amazon
> had *less* clout, but that's not how any reasonable individual would
> read that sentence.
>
When did you become reasonable? Delusional maybe, but never reasonable.
You better stick to what you know, which will give you a huge handicap
due to the limitation.
> I guess we add inability to construct coherent arguments to your list
> of shortcomings.
>
Last time I looked, you represent the clear minority in this discussion.
The fact that you can't keep up like the big folks here is not my
problem.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-18, 4:33 am |
| At 17 Oct 2007 21:39:39 -0500 Scott wrote:
> I'm not lying- if you knew how to pull the data, you'd be able to see
> the same thing. Amazon's catalog has a much higher percentage of
> relevent music than iTunes.
You've got to appreciate the irony that their top download (when I
checked yesterday) was that "1234" song used in the Nano commercial... ;-)
I doubt Amazon's offerings will spell the end of iTunes- it'll hopefully
just be the preceedent that ends DRM'd downloads. iTunes will be able to
negotiate with companies to sell more DRM'less content at lower prices.
Personally my favorite part of it is that you can now buy decent music
without having to install a ridiculous "store" application on your PC.
| |
| Sandman 2007-10-18, 4:33 am |
| In article <ff5ao1$jel$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> You bashed other MP3 phones for their tiny displays. That would
> presuppose you think the large display on the iPhone makes it a better
> MP3 player.
This is what I wrote:
"Just as a previously blissfully-ignorant $40 Verizon clamshell handset
user seeing someone watching movies, listening to their iPod, surfing
the web in full effect, buying music from the iTunes store and
watching beautiful photos on the big screen is going to wonder why
Verizon slighted them every time they open their clamshell phone."
Tell me where in that paragraph you see me claiming that the bigger
display is good only for "MP3 player".
>
> I can't refute that statement directly, as I don't own an N95, but I
> think you're full of it, or have a defective N95.
Well, thanks for trying. You failed.
>
> What part of "every bluetooth enabled phone" did you fail to understand?
Is this your best? The prime of your debating skills?
> As long as a phone supports java and BT SPP, it can use an external GPS
> and Google Maps. The RAZR, for example, supports external GPS. Only 90
> million or so have been sold.
When you're feeling ready to address what I'm actually saying, please
let me know.
--
Sandman[.net]
| |
| Sandman 2007-10-18, 4:33 am |
| In article < M7Gdnfwl4sZCaYvanZ2d
nUVZ_uXinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> Last time I looked, you represent the clear minority in this discussion.
> The fact that you can't keep up like the big folks here is not my
> problem.
When it comes to debating and logic, you couldn't hold a candle to ZnU.
--
Sandman[.net]
| |
| Peter Hayes 2007-10-18, 4:33 am |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> they are "pen names", not nyms.
>
> http://www.ivanhoffman.com/pennames.html
>
> and i have over 100 clients,
Is that your feedback rating on eBay?
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-18, 10:33 am |
| At 18 Oct 2007 09:55:26 +0200 Sandman wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> This is what I wrote:
>
> "Just as a previously blissfully-ignorant $40 Verizon clamshell handset
> user seeing someone watching movies, listening to their iPod, surfing
> the web in full effect, buying music from the iTunes store and
> watching beautiful photos on the big screen is going to wonder why
> Verizon slighted them every time they open their clamshell phone."
>
> Tell me where in that paragraph you see me claiming that the bigger
> display is good only for "MP3 player".
My apologies- it was a long thread. I may have arguing with you over
someone else's point! Sorry.
understand?[color=darkred]
>
> Is this your best? The prime of your debating skills?
No, it's an observation- to my statement "virtually every other bluetooth
phone offered by AT&T or T-Mobile can run
an external GPS and Google Maps," you replied (and I don't want to
misquote you again!) "Just not the ones that are popular, which are
usually middle to low-end phones."
My pount was that external GPS/Google Maps IS available on mid to low-end
phones- as long as they support java and Bluetooth, which are hardly
esoteric features in this day and age.
> When you're feeling ready to address what I'm actually saying, please
> let me know.
Apparently a mock "air of superiority" is the prime of YOUR debating
skills.
| |
|
| In article < M7Gdnfwl4sZCaYvanZ2d
nUVZ_uXinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-EA0C50.01335718102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
> When did you become reasonable? Delusional maybe, but never reasonable.
> You better stick to what you know, which will give you a huge handicap
> due to the limitation.
I see. So, in your world, the phrase "And with Amazon's clout" is most
reasonably understood to mean "And with Amazon's lack of clout".
Well, someone here is delusional, anyway.
>
> Last time I looked, you represent the clear minority in this discussion.
> The fact that you can't keep up like the big folks here is not my
> problem.
You appear to believe that Apple's sales of both music and iPods will
tank simply because Amazon is selling DRM-free music. Despite the fact
that the music in question works with iPods and that Apple has about the
same number of DRM-free tracks on iTunes.
Well, someone here represents the clear minority position, anyway.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article <mr-92E05F.09582618102007@News.Individual.NET>,
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article < M7Gdnfwl4sZCaYvanZ2d
nUVZ_uXinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> When it comes to debating and logic, you couldn't hold a candle to ZnU.
Ask him about his big house and how well off he is. He likes to talk
about that.
LOL
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <oyzRi.341798$dA7.296704@newsfe16.lga>,
"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> In news:colalovesmacs-51CA94.20261117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
>
> So about 90% of your clients are brighter than the rest. lol
The main reason more companies are not switching to iPhones is the cost
of switching. I know too many Blackberry users who lust for the iPhone,
but they're required to use the company-issued one.
I'd also venture to say that a huge percentage of Blackberry users were
given phones and service by their companies. Free is better than pay.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <aJGdnYm3vZ- WJIvanZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2
d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:y4hRi.5111$5c.2806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>
> I just checked- 18 of the last 20 I've purchased do.
Out of curiosity, which 2?
I know a have a Brian Wilson CD in my collection (I have a few thousand
- I do like my music!) that was protected and possibly an Ulrich
Schnauss (who knows why?), but don't really buy any of the mass-market
artists.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article <aJGdnYm3vZ- WJIvanZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2
d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:y4hRi.5111$5c.2806@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
>
>
> I just checked- 18 of the last 20 I've purchased do.
Actually, which 18?
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| At 18 Oct 2007 12:16:43 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> The main reason more companies are not switching to iPhones is the
> cost of switching.
Um, while cost may be a consideration, the lack of a true enterprise-
class Push e-mail solution for the iPhone is a much bigger problem
for most companies.
> I know too many Blackberry users who lust for the iPhone,
I'll bet the ones with company cars lust for convertables as well...
Companies issue equipment based on their own needs, not the employees'
wants!
> but they're required to use the company-issued one.
For darn good reasons. While you can almost simulate push by using IMAP
with frequent "pulling" (i.e. checking for mail every few minutes) that's
a lousy solution for EDGE-based phones like iPhone. Calls received while
the phone is busy connecting to the IMAP server will go straight to
voicemail, since EDGE doesn't support simultaneous voice and data. While
it's annoying to be unavailable for a minute or so each hour or two when
pulling IMAP e-mail, it's absolutely ridiculous to be unavailable for a
minute out of every five or ten!
Again, there's a reason so many businesses use RIM- it's currenty the
best enterprise e-mail solution available.
| |
|
| In article <ff8g34$el1$2@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 18 Oct 2007 12:16:43 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
>
> Um, while cost may be a consideration, the lack of a true enterprise-
> class Push e-mail solution for the iPhone is a much bigger problem
> for most companies.
>
>
>
> I'll bet the ones with company cars lust for convertables as well...
>
> Companies issue equipment based on their own needs, not the
> employees' wants!
>
>
> For darn good reasons. While you can almost simulate push by using
> IMAP with frequent "pulling" (i.e. checking for mail every few
> minutes) that's a lousy solution for EDGE-based phones like iPhone.
> Calls received while the phone is busy connecting to the IMAP server
> will go straight to voicemail, since EDGE doesn't support
> simultaneous voice and data. While it's annoying to be unavailable
> for a minute or so each hour or two when pulling IMAP e-mail, it's
> absolutely ridiculous to be unavailable for a minute out of every
> five or ten!
That's not how it works. When you're using EDGE and someone calls you,
the Internet connection drops and the phone rings as usual.
And it's not going to take anywhere near a full minute to check mail,
even over EDGE. Not when you're doing it every five minutes. How many
messages do you get in five minutes?
Anyway, the iPhone supposedly already supports push e-mail with Yahoo!
Mail, so there's some sort of network infrastructure in place already.
> Again, there's a reason so many businesses use RIM- it's currenty the
> best enterprise e-mail solution available.
Currently, I'd agree with that. However, Apple has a much more advanced
mobile platform, so the potential is there to build something better.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote in
news:ff6vku$340$2@ai
oe.org:
> At 17 Oct 2007 21:39:39 -0500 Scott wrote:
>
>
> You've got to appreciate the irony that their top download (when I
> checked yesterday) was that "1234" song used in the Nano commercial...
> ;-)
>
>
>
> I doubt Amazon's offerings will spell the end of iTunes- it'll
> hopefully just be the preceedent that ends DRM'd downloads.
Apple will be the end of iTunes- Amazon simply speeds up the process.
Remember something that Navas has always beat to death, and that this new
generation of Apple trolls probably don't understand- Apple is very public
about the fact that iTunes barely pays for itself and is certainly not a
highlight on the quarterly investors' call.
Unless Apple can drive a significant cost out of the operation, simply
reducing the cost from the label isn't going to be enough to show a
significant profit. Unlike Amazon, their downloads are the only game in
town for their storefront. No profit on them, no profit at all. Amazon,
otoh, offers thousands of products for sale at their storefront, many of
which carry lark markups. Amazon doesn't have to make a profit on the
downloads- they can offer them as loss leaders to generate traffic and
still make a mint.
> iTunes
> will be able to negotiate with companies to sell more DRM'less content
> at lower prices.
>
> Personally my favorite part of it is that you can now buy decent music
> without having to install a ridiculous "store" application on your PC.
>
>
Yup- every cell phone and mp3 player now has access. No bloatware needed.
>
>
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote in
news:mr-92E05F.09582618102007@News.Individual.NET:
> In article < M7Gdnfwl4sZCaYvanZ2d
nUVZ_uXinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> When it comes to debating and logic, you couldn't hold a candle to
> ZnU.
>
>
Why would I- it's obvious that you hold Znu's candle, probably on a regular
basis.
The kid isn't bad- he'll get better after he stops worrying about getting a
prom date.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:znu-A62948.11094918102007@news.individual.net:
>
> You appear to believe that Apple's sales of both music and iPods will
> tank simply because Amazon is selling DRM-free music.
Nope- I've explained the implosion in another post.
> Despite the fact
> that the music in question works with iPods and that Apple has about
> the same number of DRM-free tracks on iTunes.
Polka music doesn't count.
| |
|
| In article < QvOdnWVFyYnbbYranZ2d
nUVZ_ofinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-A62948.11094918102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
> Nope- I've explained the implosion in another post.
Oh, right. The record companies will give Amazon better deals than Apple
because Amazon has less clout.
>
> Polka music doesn't count.
Right, I forgot that EMI's entire catalog is polka music.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article < QvOdnWtFyYnpcoranZ2d
nUVZ_oesnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
[snip]
> Unless Apple can drive a significant cost out of the operation, simply
> reducing the cost from the label isn't going to be enough to show a
> significant profit. Unlike Amazon, their downloads are the only game in
> town for their storefront. No profit on them, no profit at all. Amazon,
> otoh, offers thousands of products for sale at their storefront, many of
> which carry lark markups. Amazon doesn't have to make a profit on the
> downloads- they can offer them as loss leaders to generate traffic and
> still make a mint.
Which is precisely what Apple does with its downloads. Except instead of
offering them as loss-leaders to promote a bunch of largely unrelated
products that happen to be sold from the same web site, they offer them
as loss-leaders for iPods and iPhones.
Which makes considerably more sense.
(And Apple does, in fact, make *some* money directly from music sales.)
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article < QvOdnWVFyYnbbYranZ2d
nUVZ_ofinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-A62948.11094918102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> Nope- I've explained the implosion in another post.
>
>
> Polka music doesn't count.
You've never heard Brave Combo.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:znu-458E99.19530818102007@news.individual.net:
> In article < QvOdnWtFyYnpcoranZ2d
nUVZ_oesnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Which is precisely what Apple does with its downloads.
No it doesn't- nothing but downloads available for purchase on iTunes.
> Except instead
> of offering them as loss-leaders to promote a bunch of largely
> unrelated products that happen to be sold from the same web site, they
> offer them as loss-leaders for iPods and iPhones.
Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
>
> Which makes considerably more sense.
No, it doesn't. It simply shows your sophomoric understanding of retail
sales.
>
> (And Apple does, in fact, make *some* money directly from music
> sales.)
>
I never said otherwise.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-CD1988.19484918102007
@news.individual.net:
> In article < QvOdnWVFyYnbbYranZ2d
nUVZ_ofinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Oh, right. The record companies will give Amazon better deals than Apple
> because Amazon has less clout.
Nope- try to keep up. In fact, you already responded to the post.
>
>
> Right, I forgot that EMI's entire catalog is polka music.
>
Where did I mention a specific catalog? Apple pads it's numbers with a
very large percentage of titles that nobody downloads.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-6D0630.17210518102007
@news.giganews.com:
> In article < QvOdnWVFyYnbbYranZ2d
nUVZ_ofinZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> You've never heard Brave Combo.
>
Tell me more.
| |
|
|
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:nfydnTJu3KUpZor
anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
>
> Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
Right now on the front page of iTunes there's an ad for the Nano "a little
video for everyone". You click on the ad and it takes you to the Apple
Store where you can use your Apple ID and buy one.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f3TRi.403$N7.238@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:nfydnTJu3KUpZor
anZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
>
> Right now on the front page of iTunes there's an ad for the Nano "a
> little video for everyone". You click on the ad and it takes you to
> the Apple Store where you can use your Apple ID and buy one.
>
>
>
>
>
So it's not available on iTunes? I can click a redirect link anywhere on
the internet.
| |
|
| In article < nfydnTJu3KUpZoranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-458E99.19530818102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
> No it doesn't- nothing but downloads available for purchase on
> iTunes.
>
>
> Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
Why does the strategy of using downloads to promote the sale of other
products require those other products to be purchased from the exact
same source as the downloads?
For the record, Apple *does* in fact promote the iPod models directly
through the iTunes Music Store. When I load it up right now there's a
button I can click to jump right to the Apple Store and buy a nano.
But this sort of thing is unnecessary. The iTMS would promote sales of
iPods even if the iPod was never explicitly mentioned there, because the
fact that there's a convenient way to buy content for the iPod built
right into the iPod's desktop software (and in the case of the iPhone
and the iPod Touch, actually on the device itself) adds value to the
iPod.
[snip]
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article < nfydnS1u3KWLYYranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-CD1988.19484918102007
> @news.individual.net:
>
>
> Nope- try to keep up. In fact, you already responded to the post.
So what you're saying is that your argument was so compelling that
nobody even noticed it.
>
> Where did I mention a specific catalog? Apple pads it's numbers with a
> very large percentage of titles that nobody downloads.
One of the major benefits of online rather than physical distribution of
music is precisely that with online distribution you can have a far
wider selection, whereas with physical distribution, there's a
disincentive to stock unpopular stuff.
When you point out that the iTMS has more less popular content, you're
actually pointing out one of its major advantages.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article < nfydnSlu3KVRYIranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:f3TRi.403$N7.238@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>
>
> So it's not available on iTunes? I can click a redirect link anywhere on
> the internet.
Are you actually claiming that the iTMS can't possibly be encouraging
iPod sales because you can't buy an iPod *directly in the iTunes
software*, but rather have to click a link that opens in a web browser?
Whereas Amazon's music download service effectively promotes Amazon's
other products (like, say, toasters) because you can buy them from the
same web site?
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
|
| In article < nfydnSxu3KWrYYranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-6D0630.17210518102007
> @news.giganews.com:
>
>
> Tell me more.
http://www.brave.com/bo/
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:znu-CF0203.20571918102007@news.individual.net:
> In article < nfydnSlu3KVRYIranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Are you actually claiming that the iTMS can't possibly be encouraging
> iPod sales because you can't buy an iPod *directly in the iTunes
> software*, but rather have to click a link that opens in a web
> browser?
>
No. But your close.
> Whereas Amazon's music download service effectively promotes Amazon's
> other products (like, say, toasters) because you can buy them from the
> same web site?
>
Getting warmer.
| |
| Oxford 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| "kdt" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Right now on the front page of iTunes there's an ad for the Nano "a little
> video for everyone". You click on the ad and it takes you to the Apple
> Store where you can use your Apple ID and buy one.
and right under the main iTunes Menu -
Shop for iTunes Products
takes you right to the world of iPods.
so scott is clueless as usual...
| |
|
| In article < p_udnRx2dutDnIXanZ2d
nUVZ_g6dnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-CF0203.20571918102007@news.individual.net:
>
>
> No. But your close.
>
>
> Getting warmer.
So, so summarize further, what you're saying is that Amazon's music
download service will be more effective at promoting toaster sales than
Apple's is as promoting iPod sales?
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2FB98E.20495318102007
@news.individual.net:
> In article < nfydnTJu3KUpZoranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> Why does the strategy of using downloads to promote the sale of other
> products require those other products to be purchased from the exact
> same source as the downloads?
Ease of research, ease of checkout, the ability of the comapny to make
an impulse sale all come to mind. Basic principles of retail sales.
Surely, a genius such as yourself doesn't need to that explained to him.
>
> For the record, Apple *does* in fact promote the iPod models directly
> through the iTunes Music Store. When I load it up right now there's a
> button I can click to jump right to the Apple Store and buy a nano.
So I have to use my credit card twice if I want music and iPod. No
thanks- I can get both elsewhere in a single transaction. (It's the
retail basics again).
>
> But this sort of thing is unnecessary. The iTMS would promote sales of
> iPods even if the iPod was never explicitly mentioned there, because
the
> fact that there's a convenient way to buy content for the iPod built
> right into the iPod's desktop software (and in the case of the iPhone
> and the iPod Touch, actually on the device itself) adds value to the
> iPod.
>
> [snip]
>
Nice try.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:znu-3C914A.20531518102007@news.individual.net:
> In article < nfydnS1u3KWLYYranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> So what you're saying is that your argument was so compelling that
> nobody even noticed it.
You did- you responded to it. You're starting to soound like a
simpleton with short-term memory loss.
>
>
> One of the major benefits of online rather than physical distribution
> of music is precisely that with online distribution you can have a far
> wider selection, whereas with physical distribution, there's a
> disincentive to stock unpopular stuff.
And you can also pad your numbers by claiming to have millions of
titles, while less than a hundred thousand of them are actually used.
>
> When you point out that the iTMS has more less popular content, you're
> actually pointing out one of its major advantages.
>
When you point out the vast catalog available on iTunes, you're actually
failing to mention that most of it matters to no one.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-5232FE.17574118102007@news.giganews.com:
> In article < nfydnSxu3KWrYYranZ2d
nUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.brave.com/bo/
>
Now that's actually cool- more of a cross between polka and mexicali. I
even hear some Herb Alpert influence in the orchestration.
| |
| Scott 2007-10-18, 10:33 pm |
| ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-0988CB.21040618102007
@news.individual.net:
> In article < p_udnRx2dutDnIXanZ2d
nUVZ_g6dnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> So, so summarize further, what you're saying is that Amazon's music
> download service will be more effective at promoting toaster sales than
> Apple's is as promoting iPod sales?
>
Only a dipshit would say something like that. And thanks for proving that
point. But keep working on it- this is basic stuff here. I thought you
were supposed to be well educated?
| |
|
| |