|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > June 2007 > The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
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 |
The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
|
|
| Avery 2007-06-22, 10:33 pm |
| http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztec...scons_print.htm
The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
By David LaGesse
Posted 6/22/07
Face it, the iPhone can only have so many folks swooning if it's got raw
sex appeal. This is one device that will appeal to both genders, leaving us
to ponder just what will draw people when Apple launches the phone on June
29–and what everyone should be wary of.
Seven attractions:
Striking looks: And we don't just meet the slim, hot look of the case. This
phone has a large, beautiful, and bright screen–which is all the more
surprising since it's a touch-screen, which is usually less vivid. The
screen measures 3.5 inches across, bigger than just about anything made for
the hand, and can produce as good an image as a typical desktop monitor did
just a few years ago.
Friendly demeanor: This looks to be one of the easiest cellphones to get to
know and use. Apple does software well and has packed nearly 30 years of
experience into lists that scroll with the flick of a finger, photos that
expand and shrink with a stretch of a thumb, and a screen that gets wider
or taller with the twist of a wrist. In short, the iPhone strives to become
one with your hands.
Smarts: The phone comes with all the elements of a smart phone, including
an address book, calendar, maps, notes, and, of course, E-mail. A
full-fledged Web browser comes with the system, which also is a version of
the OS X that runs Apple's computers. That means it can do several things
at once, such as send a photo to a friend while checking the calendar.
Good voice: The iPhone hails from the folks who brought you the iPod, and
you can bet this will be the best phone yet for listening to tunes. Plus it
will work with the hundreds of iPod speakers and other accessories out
there, including docks built into your Mercedes or Volkswagen, and maybe
even at your seat on a Boeing Dreamliner. Just be sure to turn off the
wireless before take-off.
Sensitive communicator: Besides a cellphone, the iPhone has built-in WiFi
and Bluetooth, which should make it easy to connect to high-speed Internet
hot spots and companion devices, like headsets. The phone itself is no
slacker, with the industry's first visual voice mail: Your messages show up
on a list, making it easy to find the one you want to hear first.
Buff muscles: With built-in memory of at least 4 gigabytes, the phone has
the heft to carry a goodly amount of music, photos, and videos.
Worldliness: The iPhone is ready to roam the globe, with its four bands of
cellphone reception.
Seven reasons to be wary:
Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date. That's even
before the cost of a monthly voice and data plan, whose prices AT&T and
Apple haven't yet revealed. Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about
half of that $500, suggesting that the company is milking the early
adopters.
No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year contract
with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service. And unlike just about
every other phone out there, there is no discount on the purchase price for
signing that two-year agreement.
Touchiness: There's only one key, and that simply brings you back the
phone's main menu. Not having a mechanical keyboard means you'll need to
focus your eyes on a virtual keypad to dial a phone number or a virtual
keyboard to text a message. The soft versions look responsive, but they can
never perform as well as hard keys.
Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving photos,
unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi. But the WiFi can't
be used to connect to other iPhones, unlike the Microsoft Zune, nor can it
sync music with a desktop computer.
Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security and ease
of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications developed for the
Web, but that means having to connect first to the Internet, and that's
slow with the iPhone unless it's within range of a WiFi network.
Questionable stamina: Apple promises eight hours of talk time, but analysts
suggest that's optimistic—and that using WiFi or playing videos will cut
that time significantly. Plus, it appears users won't be able to change the
battery, and they'll have to send it back to Apple for a new one.
Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
camera. It should even have an optical zoom.
Print | E-mail
| |
|
|
|
| In article < dmso73hr1ai3btt7toor
bhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2007 01:04:59 -0000, avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
>
>
> Why is this shit here?
Whiney techies.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Ura Dippschit 2007-06-22, 10:33 pm |
| In article < dmso73hr1ai3btt7toor
bhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2007 01:04:59 -0000, avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
>
>
> Why is this shit here?
Where, you XXXXwad? It was posted in five groups. They all fit. Go take
a nap.
| |
| Justin 2007-06-22, 10:33 pm |
| Ura Dippschit wrote on [Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:30:54 GMT]:
> In article < dmso73hr1ai3btt7toor
bhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
> Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
>
> Where, you XXXXwad? It was posted in five groups. They all fit. Go take
> a nap.
It has no place in the Verizon group.
| |
| Larry 2007-06-22, 10:33 pm |
| avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote in news:ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148
@anonymous.poster:
> which is all the more
> surprising since it's a touch-screen
I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen has
been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff it
touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
No WONDER cellphone companies want us to have it....REVENUES!
Larry
--
"Hello? No, ma'am. I'm in America, not Vietnam! How long have you been
listening to us? An HOUR?! Wow!...."
| |
| Larry 2007-06-22, 10:33 pm |
| Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in
news:dmso73hr1ai3btt
7toorbhe8c55uod16a9@
4ax.com:
> On 23 Jun 2007 01:04:59 -0000, avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
>
>
> Why is this shit here?
>
To sell iPhones, obviously! You don't detect the company in the post?
Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
| |
| Mitch 2007-06-22, 10:33 pm |
| In article <ZDNZ0GV339255. 7951273148@anonymous
.poster>, Avery
<avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote:
Only looking at this side right now:
> Seven reasons to be wary:
>
> Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date.
> Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about
> half of that $500, suggesting that the company is milking the early
> adopters.
I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered
close.
Anybody know of one?
> No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year contract
> with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service.
People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any service
contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
> And unlike just about
> every other phone out there, there is no discount on the purchase price for
> signing that two-year agreement.
Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T. How can we
claim there is no discount, when they are pricing the whole thing as a
package in the first place?
You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know the
price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)
> Touchiness:
Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.
> Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the
only one.
> making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving photos,
Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.
> unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi. But the WiFi can't
> be used to connect to other iPhones,
Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or
exchange? Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices,
anyway? Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the
wireless arena?
> unlike the Microsoft Zune,
This is silliness embodied. The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its
wireless, and has almost nothing to compare to. Who wants to send
anything for just three days?
> nor can it
> sync music with a desktop computer.
Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.
> Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
_want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
> programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security and ease
> of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications developed for the
> Web, but that means having to connect first to the Internet, and that's
> slow with the iPhone unless it's within range of a WiFi network.
I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
people are assuming it.
> Questionable stamina:
Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
comes close, you'd be totally wrong!
> Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway. Cameras in
phones are junky. Good arguments for banning them.
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-23, 4:33 am |
| Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote
> Avery <avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote
> Only looking at this side right now:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
> components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered close.
> Anybody know of one?
[color=darkred]
> People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any
> service contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
Anyone with a clue prefers no contract so you can use the phone
with whoever currently provides the best value service and you
can change to a better value one when one of those shows up.
[color=darkred]
> Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T.
> How can we claim there is no discount, when they are
> pricing the whole thing as a package in the first place?
True.
> You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know
> the price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
> comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)
[color=darkred]
> Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.
Yeah, without some form of touchscreen lock, its not going to be viable.
Its unlikely that it doesnt have something tho.
[color=darkred]
> Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the only one.
It would be better if it could use that too tho.
[color=darkred]
> Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.
[color=darkred]
> Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or exchange?
Anything anyone is likely to want to move or exchange, any of the content.
> Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices, anyway?
Much more limited range.
> Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the wireless arena?
[color=darkred]
> This is silliness embodied.
Nope.
> The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its wireless, and has almost
> nothing to compare to. Who wants to send anything for just three days?
Irrelevant to whether that feature is useful.
He didnt say its worse than the Zune, just that the Zune can do THAT.
[color=darkred]
> Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.
[color=darkred]
> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party
> tools when you haven't tried the built-in tools.
I want to be able to use the best tools available.
> This isn't a PDA in that sense; it's supposed to be a finished
> product for which you won't _want_ to add anything more.
How odd that so many other high end phones can do that.
> (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
Yep, because nothing is ever supplied with the best in all areas.
[color=darkred]
> I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
> tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
> internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
> as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
> people are assuming it.
[color=darkred]
> Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
> know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
> comes close, you'd be totally wrong!
[color=darkred]
> Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway.
> Cameras in phones are junky.
Plenty of phones have decent cameras.
> Good arguments for banning them.
Nope, there are plenty of situations where what is in the phone is quite
adequate with the best high end phones and that approach has the real
advantage that you will always have the camera handy if you need it.
| |
|
| On Jun 22, 8:10 pm, Mitch <m...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
> when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
> sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
> _want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
>
There is one problem: There is no way in hell that the manufactuer
could of thought of all the
possible uses of the phone, or what every user may want. Maybe I want
to do some scripting (like a batch file)
to execute various different functions and have it all tied to a soft
key so I don't have to trundle through
menus and selections. Wait, that tool isn't available?! OOPS! Maybe I
want to be able to upload pictures to my own web server, or send it to
an e-mail address used for that purpose with the touch of a button.
Oh
wait, can't do that either? Never XXX-U-ME that the tools on the phone
is enough for ALL users' needs.
| |
|
| On Jun 22, 6:04 pm, avery23...@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztec...ple.proscons...
>
> The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
> By David LaGesse
> Posted 6/22/07
> Face it, the iPhone can only have so many folks swooning if it's got raw
> sex appeal. This is one device that will appeal to both genders, leaving us
> to ponder just what will draw people when Apple launches the phone on June
> 29-and what everyone should be wary of.
>
What I want is something that can be used as a pocket computer that
dosen't force me to go through
some middle man to load apps on it. I want to load anything I damn
well please (within hardware capatability that is) without the damn
thing squawking "NO NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! PLAY WITH THIS
RATTLE INSTEAD!" at me. I want to have full directory access to the
PDA (which this thing seems to
to be, simaler to a Treo or a Blackberry), and if it's not built in,
allow me to install a utility to do it, and don't
try to hide shit, or play games with me, or otherwise attempt to
thwart my attempts at accessing the files. If this phone can do it,
good, if not, I'll just chalk it up to another expensive toy for
overgrown teenyboppers
At the peice this is being sold at, I expect an uncrippled pocket
computer and no less.
<rant mode on> The one thing that really bothers me about cell phones
is that they are being used
to get users used to the idea that the phone (i'll call it a computer
for now on scince that's what modern
cellphones basicly are) isn't really theirs, and that companies and
only companies have the right to
decide what you are allowed to run on the computer you bought, down to
the very programs on it in some
cases. Anything else is forbidden, and anybody who tries to use the
computer for anything other that
what the companies explicity says must be an evil hacker or an outlaw.
This is like the Trusted Computing
bullshit, but even more draconian. <rant mode off>
| |
|
|
|
| In article <5e3j4mF35be5kU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyone with a clue prefers no contract so you can use the phone
> with whoever currently provides the best value service and you
> can change to a better value one when one of those shows up.
No need to get insulting; I can follow.
The point you are making is against an exclusive carrier contract, not
against two years of service. People use the same reason to make two
entirely different points against the device, which is invalid.
Certainly exclusivity is undesirable for consumers; it also happens to
have been entirely necessary. But having a contract is not the bad
part.
> It would be better if it could use that too tho.
Sure, but this doesn't seem to be far off. Apple may even be planning
for it, and enable it in firmware, like with 802.11N.
> Irrelevant to whether that feature is useful.
Is it? That feature specifically builds in the limitation. It has no
other uses. It prevents the usefulness of such a feature in other ways.
> He didnt say its worse than the Zune, just that the Zune can do THAT.
He DID say it was worse; he was making a comparison. And since it's
something the Zune does very horribly, and most people think it's an
embarassment, it's a weird example.
>
> How odd that so many other high end phones can do that.
Not really; none of the other companies are renowned for software
development. Most analysts suggest they aren't very skilled at making
it work better (Palm notwithstanding.) Many suggest Apple's lead may
focus them on how to develop better software and a consistent OS.
In any case, Apple deserves at least respect now for what they have
done; we should criticize it when we know of a real problem, not just
because we assume there will be a problem.
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-06-23, 7:33 am |
| Link didn't work.
--
Writing is turning one's worst moments into money.
- J. P. Donleavy
| |
|
|
| Michelle Steiner 2007-06-23, 10:33 am |
| In article < Xns9957E9AC71748noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen
> has been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff
> it touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
The touchscreen can easily be disabled.
--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.
| |
| Michelle Steiner 2007-06-23, 10:33 am |
| In article < dmso73hr1ai3btt7toor
bhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2007 01:04:59 -0000, avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
>
>
> Why is this shit here?
Where is "here"?
--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.
| |
|
| zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
> There is one problem: There is no way in hell that the manufactuer
> could of thought of all the
> possible uses of the phone, or what every user may want. Maybe I want
> to do some scripting (like a batch file)
> to execute various different functions and have it all tied to a soft
> key so I don't have to trundle through
> menus and selections. Wait, that tool isn't available?! OOPS! Maybe I
> want to be able to upload pictures to my own web server, or send it to
> an e-mail address used for that purpose with the touch of a button.
> Oh
> wait, can't do that either? Never XXX-U-ME that the tools on the phone
> is enough for ALL users' needs.
sure you can, you obviously did hear what happened last week.
http://webkit.org/
http://www.satine.org/archives/2007/01/
| |
| Wes Groleau 2007-06-23, 12:33 pm |
| Mitch wrote:
> In any case, Apple deserves at least respect now for what they have
> done; we should criticize it when we know of a real problem, not just
> because we assume there will be a problem.
Especially we shouldn't criticize the lack of features
Apple has clearly advertised, such as the ability to
lock the touch-screen.
--
Wes Groleau
There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)
| |
|
|
| Dr zara 2007-06-23, 12:33 pm |
|
"Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:220620071710278
727%mitch@hawaii.rr...
> In article <ZDNZ0GV339255. 7951273148@anonymous
.poster>, Avery
> <avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Only looking at this side right now:
>
> I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
> components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered
> close.
> Anybody know of one?
>
> People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any service
> contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
>
> Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T. How can we
> claim there is no discount, when they are pricing the whole thing as a
> package in the first place?
> You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know the
> price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
> comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)
>
> Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.
>
> Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the
> only one.
>
> Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.
>
> Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or
> exchange? Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices,
> anyway? Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the
> wireless arena?
>
> This is silliness embodied. The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its
> wireless, and has almost nothing to compare to. Who wants to send
> anything for just three days?
>
> Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.
>
> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
> when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
> sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
> _want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
>
> I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
> tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
> internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
> as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
> people are assuming it.
>
> Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
> know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
> comes close, you'd be totally wrong!
>
> Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway. Cameras in
> phones are junky. Good arguments for banning them.
How come you didn't critique the "good" points, apple fanboi?
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-23, 3:33 pm |
| Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> No need to get insulting;
That wasnt insulting.
> I can follow.
We'll see...
> The point you are making is against an exclusive
> carrier contract, not against two years of service.
Nope. Many prefer to be able to change the provider of the service in the
first 2 years if a better service provider shows up. Better in terms of
coverage, price, etc etc etc instead of being locked in for 2 years even if
you decide that the original service provider is less than the best available.
Many will have changed the phone after 2 years.
> People use the same reason to make two entirely
> different points against the device, which is invalid.
Nope.
> Certainly exclusivity is undesirable for consumers; it also happens to
> have been entirely necessary. But having a contract is not the bad part.
Yes it is if you find a better service provider in that 2 years and
that is academic because you are locked into a 2 year contract.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Sure, but this doesn't seem to be far off. Apple may even be
> planning for it, and enable it in firmware, like with 802.11N.
It would be even better if they made that clear right from the outset.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Is it?
Corse it is.
> That feature specifically builds in the limitation. It has no other uses.
> It prevents the usefulness of such a feature in other ways.
Nope.
[color=darkred]
> He DID say it was worse; he was making a comparison.
> And since it's something the Zune does very horribly, and
> most people think it's an embarassment, it's a weird example.
Irrelevant to whether that feature would be useful in the iPhone.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Not really;
Yes, really.
> none of the other companies are renowned for software development.
Irrelevant to whether they allow you to run other software than what is provided.
> Most analysts suggest they aren't very skilled
> at making it work better (Palm notwithstanding.)
Irrelevant to whether they allow you to run other software than what is provided.
> Many suggest Apple's lead may focus them on how
> to develop better software and a consistent OS.
I want to be able to use the best tools available.
They're welcome to do that other stuff as well.
> In any case, Apple deserves at least respect now for what they have done;
Nope, it remains to be seen if that philosophy is its major downside or not.
> we should criticize it when we know of a real problem,
That is a real problem. I already use other software on my high end phone.
> not just because we assume there will be a problem.
I know there is a problem because I already use other software
on my high end phone that the iPhone does not provide.
| |
| Tim Murray 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| On Jun 23, 2007, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article < Xns9957E9AC71748noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> The touchscreen can easily be disabled.
>
Spouts are rarely preceded by fact checking.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| In news:a-0920FF.08184323062007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net,
none <a@b.com> typed:
> Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
> yes, it did... but try this:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/usingiphone/guidedtour.html
>
> You are still trying to use Windows, so that's probably part of the
> problem.
Sure hope the phone works better than their website describing it ;-)
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
|
"Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW. C2A314F9001CFEAEF020
3648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
> On Jun 23, 2007, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> Spouts are rarely preceded by fact checking.
Chubbs is well known for "shooting from the lip".
| |
|
| In article < Xns9957E9AC71748noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote in news:ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148
> @anonymous.poster:
>
>
> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen has
> been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff it
> touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
>
> No WONDER cellphone companies want us to have it....REVENUES!
>
> Larry
It's got a lock. I don't understand the problem.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Larry 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
062079.07301923062007@news.east.cox.net:
> The touchscreen can easily be disabled.
>
>
Who will remember to do that before pocketing it....until that first bill
hits 'em...(c;
Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
> 062079.07301923062007@news.east.cox.net:
>
>
> Who will remember to do that before pocketing it....until that first
> bill hits 'em...(c;
The same ones that remember to do that with other phones.
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article < Xns9957E9AC71748noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's got a lock. I don't understand the problem.
The problem is remembering to lock it.
| |
| Larry 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-
C7DF0E.16330923062007@news.giganews.com:
> It's got a lock. I don't understand the problem.
>
>
I stand corrected. The video has a graphic that says:
Works like Magic
No Stylus
Far More Accurate[color=darkr
ed]
Multi-finger gestures
Patented! (though I don't see how that is a feature..(c;)
We'll see how "Ignores Unintended Touches" plays out after the first bill
comes in...(c;
I've never seen any device that, touching the glasses in my pocket,
"ignores unintended touches", like dialing Bangledesh Parliament at
$2.50/minute.
It'll be interesting to watch.... Sorry I put the hawkers panties in a
wad....well, NOT.
| |
| Larry 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Wes Groleau < groleau+news@freeshe
ll.org> wrote in news:99cfi.395$YS.167
@trnddc03:
> Especially we shouldn't criticize the lack of features
> Apple has clearly advertised, such as the ability to
> lock the touch-screen.
>
>
Lock not needed! Apple promises "ignores unintended touches" on the big
video. So, you don't need to lock it as it "ignores unintended touches".
Just tell ATT it "ignores unintended touches" when that $864 cellphone
bill comes in with 4 hours connected to Bangledesh Parliament's hotline
on it. They'll understand, right, and take off the "unintended charge
from the unintended touches".
Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
| |
| Larry 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| StevieRay <shirsh98@yahoo.com> wrote in news:230620070626473
976%shirsh98
@yahoo.com:
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/usingip...tour_large.html
He's quite a salesman, isn't he? Very well presented.
Tell you what....let's turn 10 over to the posters on this thread that
DON'T own a MAC and are convinced nothing Apple does has flaws for
"product testing".
We'll return the destroyed carcass so Apple's lab can see some more of
the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
"Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.
Larry
--
Of course, I don't own a MAC so can't give an informed opinion....
| |
| Larry 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote in news:1182595011.544149.207130
@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> <rant mode on> The one thing that really bothers me about cell phones
> is that they are being used
> to get users used to the idea that the phone (i'll call it a computer
> for now on scince that's what modern
> cellphones basicly are) isn't really theirs, and that companies and
> only companies have the right to
> decide what you are allowed to run on the computer you bought, down to
> the very programs on it in some
> cases. Anything else is forbidden, and anybody who tries to use the
> computer for anything other that
> what the companies explicity says must be an evil hacker or an outlaw.
> This is like the Trusted Computing
> bullshit, but even more draconian. <rant mode off>
>
>
>
One fine post. Very well said.
Remember when we were all going to be running JAVA programs from some
central (read that metered) server? They've never given up on that
idea....centralized control.
Larry
--
http://www.spp.gov/
The end of the USA and its Constitution....RIP
| |
| Peter Pan 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article < dmso73hr1ai3btt7toor
bhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
> Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
>
> Where is "here"?
Alt.Cellular. VERIZON
It's not a CDMA phone, so why is it here (in this newsgroup)
| |
| Ian Gregory 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| > Remember when we were all going to be running JAVA programs from some
> central (read that metered) server? They've never given up on that
> idea....centralized control.
The danger here is that governments have already started making
laws that forbid manufacturers from making certain types of
hardware (think DMCA etc). At the moment companies are free to
produce hardware that does not attempt to get around DRM etc,
but other compaies are not obliged to licence stuff for it.
For anyone who is only interested in handling audio, video etc
in open standard formats without DRM, hardware is available
that allows them full freedom to tinker, at the cost of not
being able to view certain certain restrictively licenced
content.
The problem is that lots of people want that content and given
the choice of sane open hardware that does not allow them to
access it and locked down treacherous hardware that does, they
are buying the treacherous hardware. If it gets to the point
where people are unhappy with what they can/can't do on such
hardware they can throw it away and buy open harware but
since the market for such open hardware is relatively small
(restricted basically to geeks and hackers and open source
zealots) it is not receiving quite the investment and development
effort that it deserves. This is unfortunate because if it falls
by the wayside then there will be no alternative to treacherous
hardware and the manufacturers will have us by the short and curlies.
There are now open graphics cards where the entire card design
is open sourced, hardware interface fully specified etc. That
means people can write their own drivers to do what they want
with the card, but it also means the card won't work properly
with VISTA because VISTA will of course not trust it to stop
the user copying things etc. That doesn't matter because they
are designed for people running open systems and as long as
there is enough open content being produced some people will
forgo the Hollywood stuff in favour of having hardware that
is under their own control.
Ian
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| In article < Xns9958CF8E48C84noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Tell you what....let's turn 10 over to the posters on this thread that
> DON'T own a MAC
folks, one more time:
it's not MAC. It's Mac. Short for Macintosh computer.
Yeah, you all think everything is an abbreviation. Well, get over it.
Mac is simply a nickname for Macintosh.
Yeah, you have PC. That doesn't make the rest of the world like you.
| |
|
| In article <5e5qt6F37bn1uU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is remembering to lock it.
A lot easier than the logistical nightmare for functionality for
performing tasks on any of the smartphones and PDAs out there (and I
have a Treo).
I'll take this any day.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article < Xns9958CF8E48C84noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> StevieRay <shirsh98@yahoo.com> wrote in news:230620070626473
976%shirsh98
> @yahoo.com:
>
>
> He's quite a salesman, isn't he? Very well presented.
>
> Tell you what....let's turn 10 over to the posters on this thread that
> DON'T own a MAC and are convinced nothing Apple does has flaws for
> "product testing".
>
> We'll return the destroyed carcass so Apple's lab can see some more of
> the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
> carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
>
> "Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.
>
> Larry
Sorry about your hard on for Jobs.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> A lot easier than the logistical nightmare for functionality
> for performing tasks on any of the smartphones and
> PDAs out there (and I have a Treo).
You wanna try a Nokia.
> I'll take this any day.
I wont on the lack of support for third party apps alone.
I like the idea of a touch screen, I love my TomTom.
| |
| Wes Groleau 2007-06-23, 10:33 pm |
| Peter Pan wrote:
> It's not a CDMA phone, so why is it here (in this newsgroup)
Look up. See those three newsgroups (formerly five)?
If you don't want it in "that" newsgroup,
why did you leave that one on the list
when you quoted it?
--
Wes Groleau
Genealogical Lookups:
http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-06-24, 4:33 am |
| >>>>> "none" == none <a@b.com> writes:
none> You are still trying to use Windows, so that's probably part
none> of the problem.
Vista Ultimate x64 & iTunes don't seem to do well (in Firefox)....in
XP Pro I can see it OK.
--
"If brute force doesn't solve your problems, then you aren't using
enough."
| |
| Justin 2007-06-24, 4:33 am |
| Wes Groleau wrote on [Sun, 24 Jun 2007 03:32:16 GMT]:
> Peter Pan wrote:
>
> Look up. See those three newsgroups (formerly five)?
> If you don't want it in "that" newsgroup,
> why did you leave that one on the list
> when you quoted it?
Removing a group for a single reply won't stop the other replies now,
will it?
It shouldn't have been posted there to begin with. The iPhone groupies
need to keep their spam to themselves.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-24, 4:33 am |
| At 24 Jun 2007 00:08:30 +0000 Larry wrote:
> We'll see how "Ignores Unintended Touches" plays out after the first
bill
> comes in...(c;
I'll give Apple enough credit to have thought of a way to prevent that.
> I've never seen any device that, touching the glasses in my pocket,
> "ignores unintended touches", like dialing Bangledesh Parliament at
> $2.50/minute.
I'll toss this idea out there just as an example- what if the touchscreen
is capacitance driven, and needs skin (or it's equivalent) to operate,
like an old touchlamp?
There- I'm not an engineer and I solved the problem of it dialing
Bangladesh in 15-seconds. Surely Apple's engineers are far smarter than I,
and have more resources.
> It'll be interesting to watch.... Sorry I put the hawkers panties in a
> wad....well, NOT.
Frankly this whole thread extolling the virtues and condemning the sins
of a device that not one of us has touched, used, or even seen outside of
a commercial or promotional video is ridiculous for anything other than
entertainment value anyway.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| On Jun 23, 5:31 pm, Larry <n...@home.com> wrote:
> zeez <Ultim...@excite.com> wrote in news:1182595011.544149.207130
> @a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> One fine post. Very well said.
>
> Remember when we were all going to be running JAVA programs from some
> central (read that metered) server? They've never given up on that
> idea....centralized control.
>
Blech. They can switch me when hell freezes over.
The only "Trusted Computer" for me is one that I have complete
control over and know exactly
what is running.
| |
|
| Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article < dmso73hr1ai3btt7toor
bhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
> Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
>
> Where is "here"?
Well, where *isn't*?
--
Andy.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-24, 10:33 am |
| In article <1182675659.405839.301440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Blech. They can switch me when hell freezes over.
>
> The only "Trusted Computer" for me is one that I have complete
> control over and know exactly
> what is running.
I understand the iPhone comes with a piece of foil in the package--and
when you first fire up the phone, it tells you how to make a hat out of
it.
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-24, 12:33 pm |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-7CFEDE. 08524924062007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <1182675659.405839.301440@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
> I understand the iPhone comes with a piece of foil in the package--and
> when you first fire up the phone, it tells you how to make a hat out of
> it.
Almost a waste of money - most of the apple products users already have tin
foil hats.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-24, 3:33 pm |
|
On 6/24/07 12:32 PM, in article pUxfi.2368$c_4.1483@bignews2.bellsouth.net,
"Dr zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-7CFEDE. 08524924062007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
>
> Almost a waste of money - most of the apple products users already have tin
> foil hats.
>
>
If that post was intended as a joke, you forgot to include the punch line.
Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a fatal overdose of your
medication. You are a cruelly foolish subhuman and a ludicrous, maliciously
malodorous pedantic peremptory pedagogue.
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-24, 3:33 pm |
|
"George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:C2A41CB0. 2DA54%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 6/24/07 12:32 PM, in article
> pUxfi.2368$c_4.1483@bignews2.bellsouth.net,
> "Dr zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> If that post was intended as a joke, you forgot to include the punch line.
> Do yourself and everyone else a favor: take a fatal overdose of your
> medication. You are a cruelly foolish subhuman and a ludicrous,
> maliciously
> malodorous pedantic peremptory pedagogue.
And you are an XXXXXXX, with a capitol "A". I'm still waiting to send that
ice pick. I'll send you a .38 if you promise to eat a bullet.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-24, 3:33 pm |
|
On 6/24/07 1:55 PM, in article l6zfi.2407$c_4.1166@bignews2.bellsouth.net,
"Dr zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:C2A41CB0. 2DA54%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
> And you are an XXXXXXX, with a capitol "A". I'm still waiting to send that
> ice pick. I'll send you a .38 if you promise to eat a bullet.
>
>
That post is written by something so confused, it doesn't know whether to
scratch its watch or wind its XXX. How about putting that into proper
syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand what you are
saying before I dismiss it? You make me believe in reincarnation. Nobody can
be as stupid as you in one lifetime
| |
| Michael Wise 2007-06-24, 3:33 pm |
| In article <elmop-60983E. 21333623062007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article < Xns9958CF8E48C84noon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> folks, one more time:
>
> it's not MAC. It's Mac. Short for Macintosh computer.
>
> Yeah, you all think everything is an abbreviation. Well, get over it.
> Mac is simply a nickname for Macintosh.
And you apparently don't know the difference know the difference between
an abbreviation and an acronym.
In the tech world;
Mac is an abbreviation for Macintosh
MAC is an acronym for Media Access Control.
--Mike
| |
| MuahMan 2007-06-24, 10:33 pm |
|
"George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:C2A42FA2. 2DA74%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 6/24/07 1:55 PM, in article l6zfi.2407$c_4.1166@bignews2.bellsouth.net,
> "Dr zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> That post is written by something so confused, it doesn't know whether to
> scratch its watch or wind its XXX. How about putting that into proper
> syntax, form, and grammar so that I can at least understand what you are
> saying before I dismiss it? You make me believe in reincarnation. Nobody
> can
> be as stupid as you in one lifetime
>
I think he's saying you are a useless Apple shill on the verge of going on a
VT like shooting spree. He's suggesting your kill yourself before you turn
on others when you realize how empty and meaningless your life is.
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-24, 10:33 pm |
|
"MuahMan" <muahman@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bMSdnW7e46FseOP
bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> "George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:C2A42FA2. 2DA74%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
> I think he's saying you are a useless Apple shill on the verge of going on
> a VT like shooting spree. He's suggesting your kill yourself before you
> turn on others when you realize how empty and meaningless your life is.
The Dickhead claims that he doesn't "understand" what I'm saying. He
understands perfectly. He's a "Class A" XXXXXXX. How much plainer can I
make it. He should do us all a favor and off himself. Last week he said
he'd rather be blind than listen to me. He should get his wish.
| |
|
| In article <1182595011.544149.207130@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
> I want to have full directory access to the
> PDA (which this thing seems to
> to be, simaler to a Treo or a Blackberry), and if it's not built in,
> allow me to install a utility to do it, and don't
> try to hide shit, or play games with me, or otherwise attempt to
> thwart my attempts at accessing the files.
This is a common demand, and a very strange one.
The only files Mac OS actually hides are the ones that are of no use to
users; it means nothing that you can't get to them, because you won't
want them for anything.
Same with System files; the OS prevents access not because Apple
assumes they are the only ones who know anything, but because the
reliability of the system can hang on not allowing a user with a bare
clue to do something stupid.
So, I want to ask something:
If a device gives you access to all of the files YOU created or moved
to it, is that enough? It is certainly appropriate, but the demands
this is couched in usually are about stuff that he user shouldn't ever
want to see and shouldn't touch.
> and that companies and
> only companies have the right to
> decide what you are allowed to run on the computer you bought, down to
> the very programs on it in some
> cases. Anything else is forbidden, and anybody who tries to use the
> computer for anything other that
> what the companies explicity says must be an evil hacker or an outlaw.
Actually, you are leaving out a really really HUGE aspect: that the
things most of these companies are putting are the functions people
actually want and need.
It's fine that you have different demands of some devices -- I'm sure
you can come up with lots of ways to fiddle with them. But typical
users and buyers are not being cheated because a few guys want to
fiddle with how it works.
Most need what these devices do, and don't need to push and pull at
it's innards.
| |
|
| On Jun 24, 10:15 pm, Mitch <m...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <1182595011.544149.207...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> zeez <Ultim...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> This is a common demand, and a very strange one.
> The only files Mac OS actually hides are the ones that are of no use to
> users; it means nothing that you can't get to them, because you won't
> want them for anything.
> Same with System files; the OS prevents access not because Apple
> assumes they are the only ones who know anything, but because the
There is a reason why assume is known as XXX-U-ME. Apple dosen't
always know best, and
no company should ever think they know best.
> reliability of the system can hang on not allowing a user with a bare
> clue to do something stupid.
That seems to be the problem with the industry these days. Because a
newbie *might* screw up
the system, they have to lock it it down so *nobody* can access the
innards. This is akin to selling
cars with the hood bolted shut and only the dealer has the ability to
open it.
>
> So, I want to ask something:
> If a device gives you access to all of the files YOU created or moved
> to it, is that enough? It is certainly appropriate, but the demands
Many products dosen't even allow the user direct access to the files
of own content they put on there
(whether it's a download song or something they created).
> this is couched in usually are about stuff that he user shouldn't ever
> want to see and shouldn't touch.
>
>
> Actually, you are leaving out a really really HUGE aspect: that the
> things most of these companies are putting are the functions people
> actually want and need.
There is still no way they can anticipate all needs. If a user needs
a function and it isn't there,
instead of being able to download a utility from a third party
(freeware or shareware), he or she gets
to sit there hoping and praying that the company might come around to
doing it. Oh yeah, they could
write a letter to the company suggesting a feature, but it it's
something that most people won't think of,
there is a snowballs chance in hell it will ever be implimented (the
bigger the company, the worse
your chances are).
> It's fine that you have different demands of some devices -- I'm sure
> you can come up with lots of ways to fiddle with them. But typical
> users and buyers are not being cheated because a few guys want to
> fiddle with how it works.
> Most need what these devices do, and don't need to push and pull at
> it's innards.
Not everyone is a grandma or a teenybopper, and unfortunately,
companies XXX-U-ME that just about
everyone who uses their products is one of the above, and people who
use their devices to actualy
do stuff out of the MTV-Hollywood-Pop-culture norm get left out in the
cold. Yes, it really is getting
that bad. Most of the phones I see at an electronics store these days
are full of crapware that focus
on getting people to download the latest pop "tune" or annoying ring
tone, or video clips of the slop
that's on TV.
| |
|
| On Jun 25, 2:21 am, zeez <Ultim...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 10:15 pm, Mitch <m...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a reason why assume is known as XXX-U-ME. Apple dosen't
> always know best, and
> no company should ever think they know best.
>
>
> That seems to be the problem with the industry these days. Because a
> newbie *might* screw up
> the system, they have to lock it it down so *nobody* can access the
> innards. This is akin to selling
> cars with the hood bolted shut and only the dealer has the ability to
> open it.
>
>
>
>
> Many products dosen't even allow the user direct access to the files
> of own content they put on there
> (whether it's a download song or something they created).
>
>
>
>
> There is still no way they can anticipate all needs. If a user needs
> a function and it isn't there,
> instead of being able to download a utility from a third party
> (freeware or shareware), he or she gets
> to sit there hoping and praying that the company might come around to
> doing it. Oh yeah, they could
> write a letter to the company suggesting a feature, but it it's
> something that most people won't think of,
> there is a snowballs chance in hell it will ever be implimented (the
> bigger the company, the worse
> your chances are).
>
>
> Not everyone is a grandma or a teenybopper, and unfortunately,
> companies XXX-U-ME that just about
> everyone who uses their products is one of the above, and people who
> use their devices to actualy
> do stuff out of the MTV-Hollywood-Pop-culture norm get left out in the
> cold. Yes, it really is getting
> that bad. Most of the phones I see at an electronics store these days
> are full of crapware that focus
> on getting people to download the latest pop "tune" or annoying ring
> tone, or video clips of the slop
> that's on TV.
Slight correction here: Most of the higher end phones (the ones that
can really benefit from 3rd party
apps because of their processing power) and loaded with this garbage.
I've seen a few lower end sets
with this crap though.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-25, 10:33 am |
|
On 6/24/07 6:11 PM, in article ESCfi.171$vg1.124@bigfe9.bellsouth.net, "Dr
zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "MuahMan" <muahman@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:bMSdnW7e46FseOP
bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
>
> The Dickhead claims that he doesn't "understand" what I'm saying. He
> understands perfectly. He's a "Class A" XXXXXXX. How much plainer can I
> make it. He should do us all a favor and off himself. Last week he said
> he'd rather be blind than listen to me. He should get his wish.
>
>
You pole-smoking, father-molesting, armpit-sniffing, tit-sucking,
hemorrhoid-nibbling, cock-headed wankstain! What possessed you to think
that you were capable of being entertaining or interesting to read? Maybe
you wouldn't be such a Jackass if you'd had enough oxygen at birth. But
there is hope for you and your butt-buddy - hydrocephalus can be controlled:
I have a cordless Dewalt for your problem. We know that you would give your
life for us. Promise, please!
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-25, 3:33 pm |
|
On 6/24/07 4:45 PM, in article bMSdnW7e46FseOPbnZ2d
nUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast
.com,
"MuahMan" <muahman@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:C2A42FA2. 2DA74%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
> I think he's saying you are a useless Apple shill on the verge of going on a
> VT like shooting spree.
WTF is your facination with VT? Are you also "mistreated" like our late
little booger-eating Seung-Hui? Do us a favor and only get ONE .357 round,
open wide and suck on the barrel, not doc zero's 'spore'.
| |
|
| In article <5e66jgF37inr1U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You wanna try a Nokia.
>
>
> I wont on the lack of support for third party apps alone.
Yes, just what we need, more poorly written 3rd party apps that crash
the unit.
I have a few of these on my Treo. Opera Mini, for example.
I'm happy Apple is keeping a handle on this.
>
> I like the idea of a touch screen, I love my TomTom.
Like the Garmin I use the car. Love it.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-25, 3:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Yes, just what we need, more poorly written 3rd party apps that crash the unit.
Anyone with a clue uses 3rd party apps that dont.
And an OS that stops that from happening too.
> I have a few of these on my Treo. Opera Mini, for example.
More fool you.
> I'm happy Apple is keeping a handle on this.
More fool you.
[color=darkred]
> Like the Garmin I use the car. Love it.
Yeah, never go back to paper crap again.
BUT I wasnt to be able to run a decent app like TomTom 6 on the ipod too.
Makes no sense to have to have a separate GPS.
| |
|
| In article <5eaj9nF36s5q4U2@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Better, but still not good enough.[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
> Anyone with a clue uses 3rd party apps that dont.
Techies. Regular folks are SOL.
>
> And an OS that stops that from happening too.
>
>
> More fool you.
>
>
> More fool you.
>
>
>
> Yeah, never go back to paper crap again.
>
> BUT I wasnt to be able to run a decent app like TomTom 6 on the ipod too.
>
> Makes no sense to have to have a separate GPS.
Spoken like a true nerd :-)
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
|
"George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:C2A53A04. 2DB67%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 6/24/07 6:11 PM, in article ESCfi.171$vg1.124@bigfe9.bellsouth.net, "Dr
> zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> You pole-smoking, father-molesting, armpit-sniffing, tit-sucking,
> hemorrhoid-nibbling, cock-headed wankstain! What possessed you to think
> that you were capable of being entertaining or interesting to read? Maybe
> you wouldn't be such a Jackass if you'd had enough oxygen at birth. But
> there is hope for you and your butt-buddy - hydrocephalus can be
> controlled:
> I have a cordless Dewalt for your problem. We know that you would give
> your
> life for us. Promise, please!
Disjointed rants from Dickheads like you, is why I love it here.
I can just picture your beet red face and bulging neck veins. Here's hoping
you get a stroke.
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
|
"George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:C2A566D1. 2DBBF%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 6/24/07 4:45 PM, in article
> bMSdnW7e46FseOPbnZ2d
nUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast
.com,
> "MuahMan" <muahman@aol.com> wrote:
>
> WTF is your facination with VT? Are you also "mistreated" like our late
> little booger-eating Seung-Hui? Do us a favor and only get ONE .357 round,
> open wide and suck on the barrel, not doc zero's 'spore'.
Spoken like the Cock lapper you are.
| |
| Michelle Steiner 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article < NLadnUYwLJwpXuDbnZ2d
nUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast
.com>,
"Peter Pan" < PeterPanNOSPAM@Akama
ilNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> Alt.Cellular. VERIZON
>
> It's not a CDMA phone, so why is it here (in this newsgroup)
I have no idea; some jerk cross posted it there.
--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Better, but still not good enough.
It remains to be seen if even the iphone is more intuitive.
Ipods arent as intuitive as nokias.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Techies. Regular folks are SOL.
Nope, even those can see what techys say work fine.
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Spoken like a true nerd :-)
Yeah, I wanna replace the keys and credit cards with it too |-)
And the remotes as well.
| |
| Michelle Steiner 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article < Xns9958CC193590Dnoon
ehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
> Who will remember to do that before pocketing it....until that first
> bill hits 'em...(c;
All the intelligent users--which means almost all of them.
--
Support the troops: Bring them home ASAP.
| |
| Mitch 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article <1182763278.265153.193960@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>
> There is a reason why assume is known as XXX-U-ME. Apple dosen't
> always know best, and
> no company should ever think they know best.
Sorry, but that doesn't wash at all. Every company has to decide what
to do about their product design. They do know best about what they are
trying to do. It doesn't mean you should be allowed to do nothing else.
Lots of things operate this way: restaurants know how they want to cook
food, and you go to buy it under THEIR conditions. They know how they
want to arrange the resturant, and you visit in their conditions. It
isn't going to appearl to every visitor, but it can work, and there can
be lots of changes made, and if you know how you want the food changed,
they can accommodate.
To say the restaurant has no right to decide how to decorate or planto
prepare food in the first place is just ridiculous.
>
> That seems to be the problem with the industry these days. Because a
> newbie *might* screw up
> the system, they have to lock it it down so *nobody* can access the
> innards.
Sorry; you weren't reading ANYTHING properly.
Because newbies probably would screw up a system, they put in
reasonable and established safeguards to prove you know what you are
doing in a sufficiently technical manner.
You can change all kinds of things in Unix systems -- but yes, you have
to know how a Unix system works and is built and altered. That's
nothing like preventing EVERYBODY from accessing such things!
>
> Many products dosen't even allow the user direct access to the files
> of own content they put on there
> (whether it's a download song or something they created).
Are you avoiding the question?
>
> There is still no way they can anticipate all needs. If a user needs
> a function and it isn't there,
> instead of being able to download a utility from a third party
> (freeware or shareware), he or she gets
> to sit there hoping and praying that the company might come around to
> doing it.
Yes, agreed. But these kinds of devices are not likely to create such
needs very often. In fact, almost all users may find everything they
need to do on it.
See, the difference is that you are assuming people will fiddle with it
and try to use it in lots of other yet-unimagined ways. I am saying
that the people that some product appeal to suggest NOT doing that --
that it already does what they want. It is very possible that iPhone
will do all such things. I don't think you have any reason to suggest
that this is going to be seen as a pocket computer.
>
> Not everyone is a grandma or a teenybopper, and unfortunately,
> companies XXX-U-ME that just about
> everyone who uses their products is one of the above, and people who
> use their devices to actualy
> do stuff out of the MTV-Hollywood-Pop-culture norm get left out in the
> cold. Yes, it really is getting
> that bad. Most of the phones I see at an electronics store these days
> are full of crapware that focus
> on getting people to download the latest pop "tune" or annoying ring
> tone, or video clips of the slop
> that's on TV.
Wow-- a non-sequitur rant against pop culture.
Amazing that you think it applies in ANY way against iPhone.
Do you really have a reason to think iPhone is directed to grandmothers
and teenyboppers? Do you see Apple focusing on MTV users and
advertising clips? Jeez, they don't even sell ring tones, their ads are
mainstream consumers, apparently well above the MTV audience, and
obviously higher than high-school disposable income levels.
I agree with you on the points above; certainly most of the world phone
usage emphasizes activities with high cost and minimal return, like
ring tones and wallpapers. But I wouldn't accuse Apple of trying any of
those, especially since they emphasize using your own images, using
your own music, and using all of the features of the device.
| |
|
| In article <5eat5hF37rng2U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, I wanna replace the keys and credit cards with it too |-)
>
> And the remotes as well.
One of my friends who's a biker and an engineer at JPL was contemplating
getting a tattoo on his upper chest of a pocket protector (with pens
sticking out).
Too cool.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Rod Speed 2007-06-25, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> One of my friends who's a biker and an engineer at JPL was
> contemplating getting a tattoo on his upper chest of a pocket
> protector (with pens sticking out).
> Too cool.
I'm not that bad. I do have the house aggressively automated tho.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-26, 10:33 am |
|
On 6/25/07 5:00 PM, in article rVWfi.6787$n9.926@bignews8.bellsouth.net, "Dr
zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:C2A566D1. 2DBBF%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
> Spoken like the Cock lapper you are.
>
>
YOU are the one "muah-ing" YOUR man.
<<<<Slurp!>>>>>>
Lick it up, Zero!
The XXXXin' IRONY!
I guess the reason you are so involved with scatology is you simply cannot
help it.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-26, 10:33 am |
|
On 6/25/07 4:58 PM, in article nUWfi.6781$n9.3681@bignews8.bellsouth.net,
"Dr zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
> news:C2A53A04. 2DB67%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
> Disjointed rants from Dickheads like you, is why I love it here.
> I can just picture your beet red face and bulging neck veins. Here's hoping
> you get a stroke.
>
If you called the Suicide Hotline, they'd say: "Go ahead. Do it!"
| |
| Dr zara 2007-06-26, 12:33 pm |
|
"George Kerby" < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote in message
news:C2A69338. 2DE57%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 6/25/07 5:00 PM, in article rVWfi.6787$n9.926@bignews8.bellsouth.net,
> "Dr
> zara" <spook@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> YOU are the one "muah-ing" YOUR man.
>
> <<<<Slurp!>>>>>>
>
> Lick it up, Zero!
>
> The XXXXin' IRONY!
>
> I guess the reason you are so involved with scatology is you simply cannot
> help it.
Role reversal is not a defense, Cocklapper.
| |
|
| Rod Speed wrote:
>
> I'm not that bad. I do have the house aggressively automated tho.
But I am.....John Deere tatoo and augmented GPS on tractor.
|
|
|
|
|