Verizon wireless - Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

Author

Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

Oxford

2007-10-17, 3:33 pm

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...

expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
year. this is good news for everyone!

-

Third Party Applications on the iPhone

Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the
iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers¹ hands in February. We
are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community
around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our
users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware
and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best
mobile platform ever for developers.

It will take until February to release an SDK because we¹re trying to do
two diametrically opposed things at once‹provide an advanced and open
platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from
viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim
that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones‹this is
simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones
already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over
the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious
programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most
advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not
allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones
unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known
developer. While this makes such a phone less than ³totally open,² we
believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an
advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively
program the iPhone¹s amazing software platform while at the same time
protecting users from malicious programs.

We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of
great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.

Steve

P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod
touch. [Oct 17, 2007]

Joel Koltner

2007-10-17, 3:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!

Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
the box" and price.

But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
development.

Kurt

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

Ness Net

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> -
>

As always, you just don't get it....

Example:
Blackberry = business tool
iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
future)

Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

As usual.

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Joel Koltner" < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly.

well, we all know that is going to happen within 24 months, an iPhone
nano for $199 is in the works, a $99 iPhone within 36 months. Apple
ALWAYS starts at the top and works its way down the price scale. So it's
only a question "of when" Apple sweeps out the lower handset makers.

> Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place --

ah... WHAT? I think you must be using Windows. In the Apple world,
people use whatever they want since it's so EASY to try new software.

In the Windows world everyone has been "conditioned" to not try new
software, but nothing like that exists in the Apple space since there
are no penalties for using new software. The iPhone is the PERFECT
device to try new software without any risk. Plus it's FAR easier to
install / remove software on Macs / iPhones...

So I just had to LAUGH at that since that's a pure Windows issue, not an
Apple or iPhone one.

> probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

But Apple will change all that... basically, the cell industry plays
under Apple's rule from this point forward. Everyone wants an iPhone
since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
fall.

-

David Empson

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

Joel Koltner < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

It also applies to the iPod Touch.

For anyone wanting an advanced highly portable computer, but doesn't
need the additional features of the iPhone (or the long term contract)
this makes the iPod Touch even more interesting.

The PDA market isn't as large as the cellphone market, but the iPod
Touch, iPhone or a future slightly larger model with full PDA
functionality and third party application support will be very
competitive with other brands and platforms, and could easily take over
that market.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

This has removed one of my main reasons for not considering an iPod
Touch or an iPhone as a potential replacement for my dying Palm Treo
600. I do use third party software on my Treo and would like to be able
to do so on a replacement device.

I don't want to go to Windows Mobile because it doesn't work well with
the Mac.

Palm has dropped the ball on PalmOS, and a device based on OS X is far
more appealing to me as a Mac user.

I want a device which has full iPod, PDA and cellphone functionality.

If I can't get all three, I'm willing to sacrifice the phone (use a
cheap cellphone instead) but keep portable music and PDA functions on
one device.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> As always, you just don't get it....
>
> Example:
> Blackberry = business tool
> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
> future)

it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?

no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
point in the game.

> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
them.

Ness_net

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>

Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an actual clue.

Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus percent
of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

They won't give a shit if 3rd party apps are loaded. The DEVICE is flawed.

You can go on and on and on like you do - you have less than ZERO credibility at this point.

Every post continues to proves it - again and again.

Like this one... Just another fantasy based wish from a deluded, fanatic fanboy.

IMHO IIRC

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

In news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>
>
> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
> them.

Which is most likely within 4.5 years:

1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.

2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
users of non-Apple computers.

I would think number 2. :D

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>
> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>
> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
> users of non-Apple computers.
>
> I would think number 2. :D

but those aren't the only 2 choices.

3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.

4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.

5) and many more...

most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

IMHO IIRC

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>
> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>
> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>
> 5) and many more...
>
> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
was 5 years.
Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

And tell us why Google would need apple ?
Goggle has more money then apple.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>
> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>
> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>
> 5) and many more...
>
> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:XuzRi.341794$dA7.147612@newsfe16.lga...
> In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.
> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
down. Then they got AT&T

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.

Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.

and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

-

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.

80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
iPhone.

> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.

Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
iPhone contract, etc.

> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?

currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.

so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
make the cut.

we'll see.

Oxford

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
> down. Then they got AT&T

yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
blunders of the last 50 years or so.

verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/...le-iphone-deal/

i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules, they
don't... so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a chance
later on.

2007-10-17, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.

you seem not to understand the point of a board of directors.

> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

yup, but not much less in relatively liquid assets (cash & cash equivalents,
short term investments, and net receivables). and google has more long term
investments. and a lot less liabilities. i.e. if google *wanted* a higher
cash position, they'd have it.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
iphone and apple.

Your starting to sound like John Navas.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.
>
> verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/...le-iphone-deal/
>
> i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules, they
> don't... so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a chance
> later on.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?

Your so full of shit.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
> get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
> plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
> not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
> iPhone.
>
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
> course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
> for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
> iPhone contract, etc.
>
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
>
> so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
> make the cut.
>
> we'll see.

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Then why is it said Google is getting into the cell phone market. By your
thinking "Steve" would say no to Google" Fact is I don't think Google gives
a crap what apple thinks.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

IMHO IIRC

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

Actually, since Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's Board, Apple does what Google
says! lol

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
> iphone and apple.

actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.

Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>
> Your so full of shit.

learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
information from me. it's "their", not "there".

Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.

and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
*wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...

<snip>

IMHO IIRC

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.

VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
negotiations.

Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
Apple's advantage.

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.

no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!

yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
years.

currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B

-

ZnU

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article < 8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2d
nUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
>
>
> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> actual clue.
>
> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
seem to have gotten anywhere.)

[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

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article <QDzRi.5773$y21.2069@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.

I don't know if Google *needs* Apple, and I have no idea how closely the
two companies will end up working together... but Apple sure has a lot
more experience than Google building operating systems and hardware
platforms. The two companies would in many respects be a natural fit for
each other.

--
"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, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple.

Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.

> They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once
> they get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless
> they plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice
> transmissions, not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful
> features of the iPhone.

Oh, little Oxturd- how little you know about the world. No company on
the face of the planet is backing an unlimited 80211g initiative. Not
even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.

>
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months
> of course.

No it's not- iPhone swill be obsolete.

> Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
> fiddle for better pricing,

No he can't

> or play them off Verizon which is desperate
> for the iPhone contract, etc.

Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.

>
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.

And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.

>

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.

Based on what? Your clueless opinion? Verizon is positioned to surpass
AT&T in subscriber base and they aren't giving away money to market a
second class phone.

>
> verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/...le-iphone-deal/

That wasn't failure- it was very good foresight.

>
> i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules,

Where?

> they
> don't...

yet they did

> so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a
> chance later on.
>

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at
> the top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.

A lie insupported by the facts.

> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards.

Such as?

> Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
>

Um, no. IBM's failure was due to HP, Dell and a host of other companies.
Little player Apple wasn't the reason.

ZnU

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article < 13hcqqbi987vp68@corp
.supernews.com>,
"Joel Koltner" < JKolstad71HatesSpam@
yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

You're making the mistake of comparing the iPhone's price to the price
of other phones. You might want to consider that the iPhone in the first
phone on the market which can reasonably take the place of an iPod, and
look at what people will happily pay for iPods.

(And yes, I'm quite aware there have been other music player phones, but
as we see in the music player market itself, most people don't consider
other music players to be reasonable iPod substitutes.)

Anyway, I'd expect Apple to be pretty aggressive with pricing. Because
they sell 80% of the world's music players, they can probably get better
prices on most components than their competitors.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

--
"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, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
FA7034.22392217102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
>
> no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>
> yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> years.

According to who? I find no such analysis anywhere.

>
> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>
> -
>

Try again, nimrod.

Apple- $150B
Microsoft- $292B

Damn- you are that stupid.

ZnU

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

In article <bIARi.4664$wF3.312@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:

> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that Apple will have
higher market capitalization than Microsoft in a couple of years. As
much as "serious" business types like to sneer at consumer products, the
markets Apple is playing in these days are actually or potentially
gigantic.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's core markets (desktop operating systems and
office software) have much lower growth rates (they're more
established), and Microsoft hasn't even been releasing particularly
compelling products in them.

--
"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

Kevin Weaver

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

I'll be waiting for you to misspell. Then look out as I'll make it a point
to show even you mistype as well. : )

Yes I top post. As others here do as well.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
> negotiations.

well, they still lost the ability to sell the iPhone which has put a
drag on the company's stock compared to ATT.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=T&t...on&z=m&q=l&c=vz

> Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
> IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
> compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
> Apple's advantage.

no, i didn't mean them leaving the PC market in that previous comment. i
meant that IBM lost the big Apple account for the PowerPC chips about
1.5 years ago... it caused quite a stir inside IBM and laid off 100's.

they just couldn't keep up with Apple.

Oxford

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

>
> and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
> *wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...

yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.

Scott

2007-10-18, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-B3E9D3.23413917102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
> process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
>

No- they met all standards. They turned down the phone.

Larry

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example,
is not
> allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their
newest phones
> unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to
a known

> developer. While this makes such a phone less than ütotally
open,ý we
> believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on
an
> advanced system which will offer developers broad access to
natively
> program the iPhoneûs amazing software platform while at the
same time
> protecting users from malicious programs.
>
>

http://www.maemo.org/

The Linux community has provided me with some beautiful
applications for my new Nokia N800 that still amaze and keep me
interested......at no cost, should I choose not to participate.

Thank you, Nokia.....and Skype.....(c;

Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-400E20.23395117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> well, they still lost the ability to sell the iPhone which has put a
> drag on the company's stock compared to ATT.
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=T&t...on&z=m&q=l&c=vz

a drag? they're about even in that chart. vz only lagged t in the hype
following the iphone intro, up to the actual launch, and vz outperforms t
since the actual iphone release.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/ad....x=14&draw.y=14

<snip>

Ness_net

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

No, you MORON...

Verizon passed on the iPhone. Or passed on the
terms Apple was demanding. These are the facts.

Just because some fanboy like you inverts it, it doesn't
make it the truth.

Verizon passed on the iPhone.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.

Ness_net

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Verizon passed on the iPhone.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B3E9D3.23413917102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
> process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.

Ness_net

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Verizon passed on the iPhone.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

William Sheehan, Jr.

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

Why are you people arguing with an obvious 14 year old? It's like listening
to my kids argue with some one who knows the kids are wrong. Don't you have
grown-up stuff to do? And yes I top posted like us grown ups in the business
world that need new information separated from the previous static. It's an
adult thing!!

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-FA7034.22392217102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
>
> no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>
> yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> years.
>
> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>
> -

Peter Hayes

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article < 8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2d
nUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganew
s.com>,
> "Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
> iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
> platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

It most certainly isn't.

> OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
> signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
> three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
> operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
> invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
> whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

ZnU

2007-10-18, 10:33 am

In article <1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com>,
notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> It most certainly isn't.

Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,
therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
that people have some sort of irrational fear of it. It's true that it's
less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
today.

[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

Ness Net

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

As in multiple times before - you can't support your
feeble argument, so you pull out the threadbare
top post crap - again.

Sorry, you cannot deflect the truth

Verizon turned DOWN the iPhone. Told Apple to stick it.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>

Ness Net

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

There is that "deflection" again...

Can't argue the facts, so Oxford goes the chicken shit route...

Again

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" < kevinkeithweaver@sbc
global.net> wrote:
>
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

Peter Hayes

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com>,
> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> Of course it is. Running as root simply means there are no user-based
> permissions that prevent processes from doing whatever they like.
> Single-user operating systems don't have user-based permissions at all,

The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
development potential further down the line, like a multi user
permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

> therefore there obviously can't be any user-based permissions that
> prevent processes from doing whatever they like.

Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
updates having root access.

With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
running as root.

> The "don't run anything as root" mantra has been repeated so many times
> that people have some sort of irrational fear of it.

The mantra is there for a very good reason, and if people have an
irrational fear of running as root that's because they don't understand
why.

> It's true that it's
> less secure than the alternatives offered by multi-user operating
> systems... but running OS 9 or Windows 98, one was essentially always
> running as root, and the same is true of most mobile operating systems
> today.

And look at the shambles that was Windows 98 security. MacOS had its
fair share of exploits too.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

ZnU

2007-10-18, 3:33 pm

In article <1i672tb. 1txsex61guies3N%noti
nuse2@btinternet.com>,
notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> The iPhone uses a version of OS X, so we're told, which certainly isn't
> a single-user OS. Do you believe Apple's developers turned it into a
> single-user OS? I very much doubt it, that would be throwing away major
> development potential further down the line, like a multi user
> permissions based iPhone, possibly using fingerprint access.

I don't believe they cut the multiuser features out of OS X on the
iPhone. They're just not currently using them for anything, by all
accounts.

>
> Why not? Separate root processes from user processes with only Apple
> updates having root access.
>
> With third party apps now available, how long do you suppose it'll be
> before some enterprising hacker creates an exploit to record calls and
> e-mail them to him? Most would be boring as hell, but dropping that
> exploit on Jobs' iPhone might be very interesting, or even Sweaty's,
> assuming he'd get one... Easier to implement if you know the user is
> running as root.

I think this is the way they'll probably go when they officially open
the phone to third-party apps. They're not doing it now, though.

And all of this is beside the point. The discussion was whether running
as root on a multiuser OS was any more dangerous than the normal state
of affairs on a single-user OS. It's not, therefore the fact that the
iPhone currently runs everything as root doesn't represent any kind of
security problem for the iPhone *relative to most other mobile devices*,
contrary to what the iPhone's detractors have tried to claim.

[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

Larry

2007-10-18, 10:33 pm

notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
news:1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com:

> I suspect the iPhone runs a multi-user os set up as a single-user system
> but not as root. To run it as root is playing with fire.
>
> -

Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it supports,
with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because you are never
root?

I had a live Iphone, that wasn't a demo, in my hands at a cafe while the
medical student that owned it was perusing my Nokia N800 Linux box on wifi.
It had a really neat protective skin on it I wish I had for my N800 besides
the leather case. I think I really liked it because it was FLAT BLACK
making the display appear much brighter without your eyes being blinded by
the glitz.

He said he was ordering an N800 and two 8GB SDHC cards from buy.com
tonight....(c; Oops!

Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.

ZnU

2007-10-18, 10:33 pm

In article < Xns99CDBD0C047E2noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote in
> news:1i66kzq. 17de1xaime2uvN%notin
use2@btinternet.com:
>
>
> Isn't root access what Apple and ATT have, with a backdoor service
> accessible over the air....and what YOU have is the one user it
> supports, with lots of stuff locked away you cannot access because
> you are never root?

Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

[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 Kearney

2007-10-18, 10:33 pm

> Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
> the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
> space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
> wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
> fall.

Do you just sit and home and jerk yourself off to this nonsense? Yeesh, get
a clue.

Peter Hayes

2007-10-19, 4:33 am

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article < Xns99CDBD0C047E2noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Everything on an iPhone currently runs as root. The reason you can't do
> whatever you like with this access is simply because there's no
> interface (graphical or otherwise) that lets you do it.

So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Mark Crispin

2007-10-19, 12:33 pm

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, lubecki@hotmail.com wrote:
> Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The iPhone has a great touch-
> screen interface and a great browser, and that's why I got one. But as
> an actual phone it kinda sucks.

Well, duh! What did you expect? The iPhone is a high-end iPod that is
also a phone and Internet access device. As such, it is first and
foremost an iPod. Telephony and Internet are afterthoughts.

> I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
> Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.

It is not only not a particular good phone, it also is not a particularly
good Internet access device. The screen resolution is too tiny.

The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.

> The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.

Of course, but it won't; Steve Jobs wants to make it as cheaply as
possible and sell for as much as possible.

Apple is absolutely NOT interested in having open development for the
iPhone. They made that abundantly clear.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Tinman

2007-10-19, 12:33 pm

Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> So the first app to write for it is Terminal...

Uh, it's been out since July.

The Chicken Littles are still confused why the world hasn't come to an end
and AT&T's "West Coast network" has not been taken down.

--
Mike

Oxford

2007-10-19, 12:33 pm

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> Well, duh! What did you expect? The iPhone is a high-end iPod that is
> also a phone and Internet access device. As such, it is first and
> foremost an iPod. Telephony and Internet are afterthoughts.

Mark Crispin, always the clueless wonder. The iPod is the afterthought,
the phone is a marvel, best in class of any smartphone. The internet is
the "primary" focus.

>
> It is not only not a particular good phone, it also is not a particularly
> good Internet access device. The screen resolution is too tiny.

Don't you realize with a flick of two fingers you can increase the size
of any page on the web? And these are REAL pages, not crappy "phone"
sized pages... but the REAL way you see it. Plus you much better
resolution on the iPhone compared to any other smartphone. Everything is
crisp and clear.

> The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
> Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
> particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
> more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
> develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.

Only if you don't have a lot of demands. The N800 is like looking at a
decade old device compared to the iPhone. And linux on a phone will
never take off, it's just not a robust enough platform for such a small
device. The graphics alone make a linux based phone unusable.

>
> Of course, but it won't; Steve Jobs wants to make it as cheaply as
> possible and sell for as much as possible.

As of this moment the iPhone is the best built smart phone in the world,
best batter life, thinnest, best screen, etc, etc. And it's the cheapest!

The fat openmoko has a tiny screen, poor battery life, and is going to
be $450 with less than HALF the iPhone features.

> Apple is absolutely NOT interested in having open development for the
> iPhone. They made that abundantly clear.

Apple is more concerned with making a USABLE phone by millions, so that
means developers must step up to a higher level and not try and cheat
the user like Linux and Nokia love to do.

Mark, you are clearly out of touch with what is happening. The iPhone
will be the primary phone for the next 20 years or so, so LEARN to
develop for it... it's PURE UNIX under the hood, not amateurish Linux.

-

Larry

2007-10-19, 3:33 pm

lubecki@hotmail.com wrote in news:1192803855.482134.73640
@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> I still got one despite all this because I wanted the big screen with
> Google Maps and a full(er) browser, but it was a compromise for me.
> The iPhone could be so much more than what it is.
>
>

http://europe.nokia.com/A4579471

Nokia's Linux Maemo OS2008 for the N800 and new N810 (slideout keyboard),
has a great looking map program that upgrades to Wayfinder premium service.

Click MAP to take a look.

I just bought the N800 and installed two 8GB SDHC cards in it. Fantastic
Linux box on OS2007 and I'll upgrade to OS2008 for the new toys asap....(c;

Larry
--
OS2007 comes with Opera 8 and Flash 9. The only thing missing is JAVA
support. OS2008 is switching to Firefox, whos mozilla engine I'm already
running under 2007 as a free download. Opera is slower but does some
things better because it has an optimization server Opera connects to to
optimize some webpages to the 800 pixel wide screen. Both work great.
Webpages look like webpages, not a confusing series of out-of-place stuff
you can't read. 800 pixel width is the N800's greatest browser feature.

Larry

2007-10-19, 3:33 pm

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710190827390.3116@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM:

> The Nokia N800 or a UMPC (such as the Sony UX series) make much better
> Internet access devices. Nobody who has either a Nokia N800 or UMPC is
> particularly impressed with the iPhone's Internet capability. What's
> more, both are open platforms: Linux on the Nokia N800 (and you can
> develop your own applications for it) and Windows on a UMPC.
>
>

Nokia has posted new webpages for the new N810, with slideout keyboard
and Maemo Linux OS2008, the next generation operating system for the N800
and N810 boxes:

N810
http://europe.nokia.com/A4568578

Maemo OS2008
http://europe.nokia.com/A4579471

Looking at N810, I think I made the right choice with the $222 N800. The
N810 keyboard makes it much thicker, gotta be heavier and they took the
great speakers off the FRONT, where speakers belong.

Can't wait to see the new toys in OS2008 on the N800....(c;

Larry
--
Orb serves my videos/audios/pictures/TV card cable TV/webcam of the
living room/files to the N800 via Realmedia over EVDO or wifi fantastic!
http://corp.orb.com/
Really cool to have ALL the 4.8TB in the little Linux box...(c;
Orb should run as a Quicktime server to the iPhone, too!
Alas, Orb runs under Win XP/Vista.....

Larry

2007-10-19, 3:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
53CA6A.10215119102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> Only if you don't have a lot of demands. The N800 is like looking at a
> decade old device compared to the iPhone. And linux on a phone will
> never take off, it's just not a robust enough platform for such a small
> device. The graphics alone make a linux based phone unusable.
>

Er, ah, many phones run Linux as their OS, and have for a long time.
Nokia is quite committed to Linux. So are others.

I'm more interested in your "decade old device" comment. How so,
specifically? Because it's not a carrier-controlled Sellphone device?
Because it has a changeable battery and runs 8 hours connected if you
turn the display down to half? Because it has two 8GB SDHC memory cards
I can plug into my computer to load files for it? Because I control what
it does, not Apple and ATT bureaucrats? Because it has speakers like a
laptop in stereo? Because it has buttons to do many things without
searching and clicking? Because it upgrades from a WinXP box a whole new
operating system, IN MY HOUSE, in 7 minutes from a WinXP/Vista program
that does a whole bootloader level upgrade....even if you pull the plug
while it's upgrading and just do it over again without returning it to
Apple?

Can you run Skype? Googletalk with a webcam? Where's the webcam pop out
of, anyway. This "decade old device" has one that even rotates.

Tell me more! Ok, I can't spread my fingers and get its vagina to open
wider. I have to use a button on top...big deal...(c; Finger/stylus
scrolling works like yours. At 800 pixel browser width, that's without
reloading on the Nokias. How wide was your screen?

Then, there's this other "decade old" idea:
http://maemo.org/
Welcome to OUR world....
http://www.internettablettalk.com/

Larry
--
http://europe.nokia.com/A4568578
http://europe.nokia.com/A4579470
I can choose if I want a real keyboard...N810 out soon!

Here's why the N800 has so many "buttons"....(c;
http://www2.lut.fi/~thietan1/quetoo/
How you gonna play Quake 2 without them??

Steve Sobol

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.t-mobile.]
On 2007-10-19, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Er, ah, many phones run Linux as their OS, and have for a long time.
> Nokia is quite committed to Linux. So are others.

That's right. Motorola has come out with some Linux-based phones too. I
had not heard about Linux on Nokias though; most Nokias have traditionally
run Symbian OS. If they're migrating to Linux, that's very cool.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

Wahoo! Indians beat New York to advance to the AL Championship Series!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...1,5871580.story

Oxford

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> N810
> http://europe.nokia.com/A4568578
>
> Maemo OS2008
> http://europe.nokia.com/A4579471
>
> Looking at N810, I think I made the right choice with the $222 N800. The
> N810 keyboard makes it much thicker, gotta be heavier and they took the
> great speakers off the FRONT, where speakers belong.
>
> Can't wait to see the new toys in OS2008 on the N800....(c;

you probably won't see many "toys" for these devices, they seem quite
limited in many ways, plus you won't have the large development
community behind them like you do with the iPhone.

you probably wasted your money, but for $222, it's a throw away item
anyway. sell it on ebay in a year for $140, get an iPhone for $199 and
then get on with life.

Oxford

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>
> Er, ah, many phones run Linux as their OS, and have for a long time.
> Nokia is quite committed to Linux. So are others.

well, not "many" run linux, maybe 4%, but not more than that in the
states.

> I'm more interested in your "decade old device" comment. How so,
> specifically?

very poor build quality, no thought about "design", just slapped
together to make a buck.

> Because it's not a carrier-controlled Sellphone device?

what? it doesn't have Visual Voice mail, doesn't have an iPod built in,
doesn't have a REAL web browser, poor screen rez, etc.

> Because it has a changeable battery and runs 8 hours connected if you
> turn the display down to half?

The iPhone runs 3 times as long, so that's a weakness of the N800 right
there. You can add batteries to the iPhone, it's no different.

> Because it has two 8GB SDHC memory cards

It doesn't COME with those, it comes with 256MB, you have to pay extra
or 8GB, you don't with the iPhone.

> I can plug into my computer to load files for it?

Same with the iPhone.

> Because I control what
> it does, not Apple and ATT bureaucrats?

Not sure what you mean? I have total control over my iPhone, maybe you
don't?

> Because it has speakers like a
> laptop in stereo?

Yes, "as is" the iPhone is mono, but there are 1000's of way to make it
stereo, with the N800, not so much.

> Because it has buttons to do many things without
> searching and clicking?

Not sure what you mean, the iPhone has more buttons than the N800 by a
long shot, and they actually do what you want, not get you mired in poor
UI design like the Nokia people want you to do.

> Because it upgrades from a WinXP box a whole new
> operating system, IN MY HOUSE, in 7 minutes from a WinXP/Vista program
> that does a whole bootloader level upgrade....even if you pull the plug
> while it's upgrading and just do it over again without returning it to
> Apple?

Nobody in their right mind would still be using any Windows based OS, so
you really goofed by bringing up XP. Most modern people use OSX and
iPods or iPhones, the rest kinda have to deal with the past.

All upgrades for the iPhone happen right on your screen, no upgrade
would require sending it to Apple.

> Can you run Skype? Googletalk with a webcam? Where's the webcam pop out
> of, anyway. This "decade old device" has one that even rotates.

Yes, http://s4iphone.com/index_iphone.jsp

The camera stuff is minor, at least Apple gives you a better camera and
a better UI, and a better way to deal with the images. Nokia kinda says
"XXXX off" when you get an image into your phone.

> Tell me more! Ok, I can't spread my fingers and get its vagina to open
> wider. I have to use a button on top...big deal...(c; Finger/stylus
> scrolling works like yours. At 800 pixel browser width, that's without
> reloading on the Nokias. How wide was your screen?

Someday, Larry you'll move up to an iPhone, but looks like you'll be
living about a decade behind Apple users for the next year or two.

-

Larry

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
99948B.15284819102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:

> you won't have the large development
> community behind them like you do with the iPhone.
>
>

You're absolutely right. Nokia, one of the largest telecom
companies on the planet with 109,871 employees, worldwide, and a
mere 62.77 Billion in revenue can barely compare with such giants
of computing as Apple with 19.3 Billion in revenue and 17,787
employees.

Nokia can't possibly have the talent on board to design a
internet device to go along with their telecommunications
equipment the internet runs on....right?

Where do you guys get so brainwashed? Is there some subliminal
background program in iPods? I must agree, wholeheartedly that
Apple excells in MARKETING, if nothing else.

Larry
--
You can tell there's extremely
intelligent life in the universe
because they have never called Earth.

Larry

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
0C8A07.15422019102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:

> you have to pay extra
> or 8GB, you don't with the iPhone.
>

You must not have taken too close a look at your MASTERCARD BILL
after being ripped off. You paid a LOT more than $68 for 8GB
locked away in that little box, bud....hee hee.

Larry
--

Steve Sobol

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-10-19, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> You're absolutely right. Nokia, one of the largest telecom
> companies on the planet with 109,871 employees, worldwide,

Larry, allow me please?

Oxford, you idiot.

Nokia is a market leader in wireless phones and they have been for years.
They have a huge developer community. I don't recall whether they're still
the #1 largest cellphone manufacturer in the world, but if not, they're
at least #2 or #3.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

Wahoo! Indians beat New York to advance to the AL Championship Series!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...1,5871580.story

Ness_net

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

A couple of words / terms.

YES "brainwashed" - fanatic fanboy is the term.
Gulping down the Apple Kool-Aid.
No facts, just fantasy.

And - HYPE is the word you were looking for.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message news:Xns99CECAA864EC
3noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...

>
> Where do you guys get so brainwashed? Is there some subliminal
> background program in iPods? I must agree, wholeheartedly that
> Apple excells in MARKETING, if nothing else.

Scott

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:SICdnZxLE5Fh1YT
anZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:

> A couple of words / terms.
>
> YES "brainwashed" - fanatic fanboy is the term.
> Gulping down the Apple Kool-Aid.
> No facts, just fantasy.
>
> And - HYPE is the word you were looking for.
>
>
>
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99CECAA864EC
3noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
>
>
>
>

Yep- agree with you both. They create hype for second rate products. What
we are seeing here is something akin to a teenage boy with Farrah Fawcett
posters on his wall (I think you can both relate to the analogy).

Oxford

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> Nokia is a market leader in wireless phones and they have been for years.
> They have a huge developer community. I don't recall whether they're still
> the #1 largest cellphone manufacturer in the world, but if not, they're
> at least #2 or #3.

as was IBM in the 1970's, the Apple ][ wiped them out. So was
Compugraphic in the 1980's, the Mac wiped them out. So was Diamond Rio,
but the iPod wiped them out.

The iPhone is far too strong for a weak company like Nokia, they simply
don't have the foundation to compete against a big player like Apple.

You'll see what I'm saying in about 5 years. Nokia among others will be
sold off for pennies on the dollar... The iPhone is advanced for them to
catch up at this point. Apple knows hardware & SOFTWARE better than
anyone on the planet.

Apple is just too strong.

Oxford

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> You're absolutely right. Nokia, one of the largest telecom
> companies on the planet with 109,871 employees, worldwide, and a
> mere 62.77 Billion in revenue can barely compare with such giants
> of computing as Apple with 19.3 Billion in revenue and 17,787
> employees.

yes, and Apple has 1/5th the employees, about 1/2 the revenue, (30B) but
worth 30% more. That's the value equation that Nokia can't match no
matter what they do.

I've seen all this before... and Nokia is one of the weaker firms I've
encountered once Apple enters their market.

> Nokia can't possibly have the talent on board to design a
> internet device to go along with their telecommunications
> equipment the internet runs on....right?

Correct. It's baffling why with "all those employees" they can't manage
to make a full web browser work on a phone. Apple did it with flying
colors, but all other smartphones are still 10 years behind Apple on the
internet. Why? what is the hold up?

> Where do you guys get so brainwashed? Is there some subliminal
> background program in iPods? I must agree, wholeheartedly that
> Apple excells in MARKETING, if nothing else.

I think it has a lot to do with QUALITY. Nokia and others never had that
as a goal, they just would shove out another model and never "think"
about design, how it worked, how long the battery lasted, etc. The Cell
Industry was never competitive like the PC industry so they are all weak
players.

So it puts them in a very weak position since they never have developed
the skills to compete with a company of the caliber of Apple.

Do you really think Cell Companies can match 30 years of development
such as these... Nope! It will never happen. Apple has already won...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Animation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Graphics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Data

---

Bob Campbell

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

In article
<colalovesmacs-549658.19532019102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:

> Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>
> as was IBM in the 1970's, the Apple ][ wiped them out.

You're dreaming again. IBM is doing just fine.

Bob Campbell

Oxford

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> You must not have taken too close a look at your MASTERCARD BILL
> after being ripped off. You paid a LOT more than $68 for 8GB
> locked away in that little box, bud....hee hee.

I paid $598 for 2 4GBs, with full iPod, Internet, Mail and the Apple
ability to resell that same devices for $200 each in 2 years... that's
what you and others don't understand.

when you buy an Apple device, you get far better resale value because of
the quality involved. It's similar to buying fine cars if you think
about it.

if you buy no name brands like Nokia, you get screwed since you don't
have a sellable product in the 2 year time frame. you lose your
investment. but when you go with an Apple product, you get to use it and
get about half back in 2-3 years. no other company can provide that.

yes, you can accuse Apple users of being smart all you want, but dollar
for dollar we know how best to spend money. the iPhone is the "smart"
persons phone/ipod/mail/internet communicator.

no other smartphone even comes close to the same value.

-

Ness_net

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-57CF82.20222519102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
>
> I paid $598 for 2 4GBs, with full iPod, Internet, Mail and the Apple
> ability to resell that same devices for $200 each in 2 years... that's
> what you and others don't understand.

Oxford, you are a XXXXing idiot. When Apple releases a 3G version, the
units you have will be basically worthless. You are a fool to think they have
any resale value. Minimal, at best.
>
> when you buy an Apple device, you get far better resale value because of
> the quality involved. It's similar to buying fine cars if you think
> about it.

Again, a foolish, deluded idiot. Drunk on the tainted Kool Aid...

>
> if you buy no name brands like Nokia, you get screwed since you don't
> have a sellable product in the 2 year time frame. you lose your
> investment. but when you go with an Apple product, you get to use it and
> get about half back in 2-3 years. no other company can provide that.

What a moron.
>
> yes, you can accuse Apple users of being smart all you want, but dollar
> for dollar we know how best to spend money. the iPhone is the "smart"
> persons phone/ipod/mail/internet communicator.
>
> no other smartphone even comes close to the same value.
>
> -

Yes, but the opposite. Many actually exceed it - I agree, the iPhone isn't even close.
It's quite a bit inferior. Any unit with EVDO for instance.

Scott

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
0B4736.20060719102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:

> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> yes, and Apple has 1/5th the employees, about 1/2 the revenue, (30B) but
> worth 30% more. That's the value equation that Nokia can't match no
> matter what they do.

Not according to how you measure a company's value. At lewast now how you
were doing it last night.

Typical of the stupid- can't keep their own stories and facts straight.

Oxford

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

>
> You're dreaming again. IBM is doing just fine.
>
> Bob Campbell

sure, but its a dwarf of its former size / power... apple will be more
valuable than IBM in less than 6 days :)

IMHO IIRC

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

In news:colalovesmacs-AF06CA.20443619102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> sure, but its a dwarf of its former size / power... apple will be more
> valuable than IBM in less than 6 days :)

First you said the Apple][ wiped out IBM.
Then you said IBM is a dwarf of its former size / power.
Finally you said Apple will be more valuable than IBM in less than 6 days.

So Apple, after wiping out IBM in the 1970s, is to still not be more
valuable than IBM. lol

Bob Campbell

2007-10-19, 10:33 pm

In article
<colalovesmacs-AF06CA.20443619102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:

> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> sure, but its a dwarf of its former size / power... apple will be more
> valuable than IBM in less than 6 days :)

Only in terms of market cap. Apple is *way* overvalued. If today's
crash continues next week, look for Apple to drop to more realistic
levels.

Meanwhile, IBM has $100 billion in revenue this year, Apple has what,
$25 billion?

There is no comparison.

Bob Campbell

Bob Campbell

2007-10-20, 4:33 am

In article <dBeSi.21980$UN.14491@newsfe24.lga>,
"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> First you said the Apple][ wiped out IBM.
> Then you said IBM is a dwarf of its former size / power.
> Finally you said Apple will be more valuable than IBM in less than 6 days.
>
> So Apple, after wiping out IBM in the 1970s, is to still not be more
> valuable than IBM. lol

Well, that's Oxford! Constantly back pedaling. Constantly
re-adjusting his claims in the face of facts. Constantly drinking RDF
infected kool aide.

Constantly an embarrassment to the Mac community.

Bob Campbell

Oxford

2007-10-20, 3:33 pm

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
> First you said the Apple ][ wiped out IBM.

And it clearly did, IBM no longer has much power over the computer
space. It's a dormant dwarf of no social power like it was in the 60's
70's. Apple brought on the "personal computer" and it knocked out IBM.

> Then you said IBM is a dwarf of its former size / power.

Yes, correct, see above.

> Finally you said Apple will be more valuable than IBM in less than 6 days.

Yes, correct, see the market by next week, Apple is about 4B away from
passing IBM in market value. Apple earnings are released on MONDAY.
think about it...

> So Apple, after wiping out IBM in the 1970s, is to still not be more
> valuable than IBM. lol

Ah, you are mixing up the terms "power" and "market cap". Apple controls
most of the computing industry now, that equates to POWER. but yes,
there are still some past dormant stars out there, like Microsoft and
IBM that used to have power, but no longer have any social control or
political power over the future of their markets. Apple has taken that
away from them.

Learn how the world works IMHO, it will help you greatly!

-

Oxford

2007-10-20, 10:33 pm

Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

>
> Only in terms of market cap. Apple is *way* overvalued.

actually "market cap" is EXACT during and after market close. so while
you may personally "disagree" with Apple's value. as a "society", we
have valued Apple nearly the same as IBM. that's a RAW indisputable
fact. No opinions mater... it's what "everyone, collectively thinks"
right now, there is no undervalue or overvalue, it's just the exact
"VALUE" of those two firms on Friday.

> If today's
> crash continues next week, look for Apple to drop to more realistic
> levels.

ah, but Apple releases Leopard next week, that's a cool $200 million in
90 days, IBM has nothing like that kind of pure cash flow. Then you have
all the new iPods that Apple can't build enough of... and all the people
waiting to buy new Macs once Leopard is installed, so you have a
$200-220 stock by January, while IBM has nothing, but slowing falling
further.

> Meanwhile, IBM has $100 billion in revenue this year, Apple has what,
> $25 billion?

yes, it means IBM workers have to labor harder for less return. Apple is
about a 32B company this year, so by default Apple works 2/3rds less for
the same / or very similar "value".

> There is no comparison.

yes, there is no comparison, Apple is much stronger company than IBM.

News

2007-10-20, 10:33 pm

Oxford wrote:
> yes, there is no comparison, Apple is much stronger company than IBM.

You are wasting your time here, for chump change per usenet post.

Go work on Wall Street and see if you can pull down some big bucks.

2007-10-20, 10:33 pm

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-BFA7E3.20484520102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>
> actually "market cap" is EXACT during and after market close. so while
> you may personally "disagree" with Apple's value. as a "society", we
> have valued Apple nearly the same as IBM. that's a RAW indisputable
> fact. No opinions mater... it's what "everyone, collectively thinks"
> right now, there is no undervalue or overvalue, it's just the exact
> "VALUE" of those two firms on Friday.

that's one way to look at it- not the way most successful long term
investors look at it, but it's one way to look at it...

>
> ah, but Apple releases Leopard next week, that's a cool $200 million in
> 90 days, IBM has nothing like that kind of pure cash flow.

ibm's cash flow is 3 times that of apple.

<snip>
>
> yes, it means IBM workers have to labor harder for less return. Apple is
> about a 32B company this year,

no, it's not, unless it's going to have as much revenue this last quarter as
it did the last 3 combined.

<snip>

Oxford

2007-10-21, 4:33 am

News <News@Groups.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
>
> You are wasting your time here, for chump change per usenet post.
>
> Go work on Wall Street and see if you can pull down some big bucks.

i can work on wallstreet and post to usenet at the same time, all on the
same screen. sweet.

Ness_net

2007-10-21, 4:33 am

Or, you can be a stock (fan) boy at a Minneapolis Apple store....

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B14DA9.21411820102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
> i can work on wallstreet

News

2007-10-21, 10:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> i can work on wallstreet and post to usenet at the same time, all on the
> same screen. sweet.

And you are clearly wasting your time with one, or both.