|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Sprint PCS > November 2007 > NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS
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 |
NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS
|
|
| Ness-Net 2007-11-20, 3:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-874348.17000319112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
> downfall!
>
> Wow!
>
> We all knew this would happen sooner or later, but Germany's poorly
> managed Vodafone unit has gone to court to stop Cell Phone advancements
> in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
> so are seeking court relief before they go under.
>
> This will be good for everyone!
>
Here is the REAL facts...
Vodafone did not ask the court to stop T-Mobile from selling the iPhone,
Gordon said.
Vodafone would like to see a court eventually mandate that T-Mobile sell an
unlocked
version of the iPhone for the same or less as today's locked version, he
said.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...hone_sales.html
I don't think I've ever seen someone (Oxford) more consistently full of
shit.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-20, 3:33 pm |
| "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> Here is the REAL facts...
>
> Vodafone did not ask the court to stop T-Mobile from selling the iPhone,
> Gordon said.
> Vodafone would like to see a court eventually mandate that T-Mobile sell an
> unlocked
> version of the iPhone for the same or less as today's locked version, he
> said.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent..._tm
obile
> _iphone_sales.html
>
> I don't think I've ever seen someone (Oxford) more consistently full of
> shit.
Yes, but from a LEGAL perspective Vodafone is TERRIFIED of losing
customers to the iPhone, so they are trying to open up holes so they can
obtain revenue from the iPhone without committing to the future.
No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact. Apple has too many patents on the future, so
everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
These are the facts... cell carriers and handset makers must face.
Do a great deal with Apple to carry the iPhone, or disappear.
Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
-
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-20, 3:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-2D1408.13355220112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact.
Nonsense.
Different people use cell phones for different purposes; quite a lot of
people use them simply as phones. For that purpose something
considerably smaller, lighter cheaper and simpler makes a lot more sense
than the iPhone.
Some people use them to connect to the internet. Whatever you may think
is going to happen, at present open WiFi networks are not available in
most places, at least in my experience. Under those circumstances, a 3G
phone provides a better connection, especially for tethering, than the
iPhone.
I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
not for most.
> Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
something interesting.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
|
|
Oxford wrote:
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
Fish or cut bait, Oxie-moron.
When did you naked short the wireless telcos and handset makers?
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-20, 3:33 pm |
| David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> not for most.
>
>
> This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> something interesting.
great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
slightest tip of the product iceberg.
Apple has 20-30 designs on their 3D imager right now and is fine tuning
them as we speak to match the larger Cell Market. You'll see 8 to 12 new
models of iPhones within 36 months.
That's just how Apple operates... always bettering themselves since
there is no outside competition.
So, don't focus on the great first iPhone and say it's the last.
Simply look at the Monochrome 5GB iPod sold at $399 in 2001, then look
at the iPod Nano 8GB sold today in Walmarts across the world.
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/
Apple has only opened up 7 outlets for the iPhone, and it's been a
massive success. 90x times more popular than the original iPod!
The iPod now sells at upwards of 47,000 locations...
The iPhone will follow the same successful path.
-
| |
| Ness-Net 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-2D1408.13355220112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
>
> Yes, but from a LEGAL perspective Vodafone is TERRIFIED of losing
> customers to the iPhone, so they are trying to open up holes so they can
> obtain revenue from the iPhone without committing to the future.
>
> No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact. Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
>
> These are the facts... cell carriers and handset makers must face.
>
> Do a great deal with Apple to carry the iPhone, or disappear.
>
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
>
> -
>
Nope, sorry. Not even a moderately good attempt at spin.
Wrong on ALL counts. Sorry fanatic fanboy.
Since Oxford's pathetic spin is ALL complete CRAP - no point
in my refuting it line by line.
Just more of the same, lame fiction.
| |
| Ness-Net 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
|
"David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-F204B6.12564720112007@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article
> <linuxlovesosx-2D1408.13355220112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Different people use cell phones for different purposes; quite a lot of
> people use them simply as phones. For that purpose something
> considerably smaller, lighter cheaper and simpler makes a lot more sense
> than the iPhone.
>
> Some people use them to connect to the internet. Whatever you may think
> is going to happen, at present open WiFi networks are not available in
> most places, at least in my experience. Under those circumstances, a 3G
> phone provides a better connection, especially for tethering, than the
> iPhone.
>
> I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> not for most.
>
>
> This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> something interesting.
>
>
It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
(That and the complete disregard for any facts whatsoever)
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
| "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
-
| |
|
|
Oxford wrote:
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> catch me back in 5 years...
Better idea: hold your breath and let's see what happens.
No cheat-breathing, now, Oxie-moron. Hold it.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
163999.16565620112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Bullshit.
>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
More bullshit. Other than the mp3 market, Apple is a third rate player in
EVERY other market they do businees in.
>
> -
>
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
Two decades??? Hell, the iPhone will be obsolete, MORON.
| |
| Ness-Net 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-163999.16565620112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -
>
OK...... I'll NOT be holding my breath in the mean time.
Here's the deal..... the market is FAR from "static" and functions
VERY well. Therefore, your suppositions aren't based on any facts.
Therefore, they are completely false.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
Always???
Lets see....
1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
$7,499 price been a factor?
10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
| DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Always???
>
> Lets see....
>
> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>
> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>
> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>
> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>
> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>
> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>
> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>
> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>
> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
> $7,499 price been a factor?
>
> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>
> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>
> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>
>
>
>
>
You forgot Apple TV.
| |
| Paul Miner 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Oxford
< linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
>trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>
>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
example.
--
Paul Miner
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-20, 10:33 pm |
| Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in
news:jr47k31i4v9sru6
tlrv46hb5gfbuesqq11@
4ax.com:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Oxford
> < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
>
> Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
> example.
>
No- it was the flat screen hi-def market! Oh, wait... that was everybody
BUT Apple.
Never mind.
| |
| IMHO IIRC 2007-11-21, 4:33 am |
| underprocessable | |
| David Friedman 2007-11-21, 4:33 am |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-163999.16565620112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -
Market share in personal computers--much less than a majority.
Market share in pda's--haven't seen any Newtons around lately.
So far as I can tell, the only thing that comes even close to fitting
your description is the iPod.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-21, 4:33 am |
| In article < HZGdnda2GKom_d7anZ2d
nUVZ_vGinZ2d@giganew
s.com>,
"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
> It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
> The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
>
As I read it, it's the desire of the responders to feel good about
themselves by dumping on a readily available target that's the main
driver for the responses.
But perhaps I am being uncharitable.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-21, 4:33 am |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-A0AC9A.14150920112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.
Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
responding to, was:
"No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact."
Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
then?" That's a very different claim.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
|
|
IMHO IIRC wrote:
> In news:Xns99EEBBE9BB7B
8isheforreal@216.196.97.142,
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
>
>
>
>
>
> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
> the market and killed off the competition?
>
Undoubtedly, furiously screen-scraping material that he doesn't
understand, but believes to be responsive, with which to reply.
Or asking SJ ...
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-21, 10:33 am |
| News <News@Groups.com> wrote in
news:gdWdnbeSerPavNn
anZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@sp
eakeasy.net:
>
>
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>
>
> Undoubtedly, furiously screen-scraping material that he doesn't
> understand, but believes to be responsive, with which to reply.
He probably is trying to get past the 100,000 links that beat the above
list into his head.
>
> Or asking SJ ...
How would he do that with his mouth full?
| |
| Mitch 2007-11-22, 12:33 pm |
| In article <bob-0A51DC.18065220112007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
> Apple introduced a big, slow, locked,
> expensive, proprietary phone
Wow -- you, too, are wrong on almost every point
it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
has close to that screen res.
it isn't particularly slow processing
locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
it isn't expensive compared to most phones with a high-res screen (and
it's totally foolish to compare to ANYTHING that doesn't have that --
it's the PRIME feature!)
Just what are you calling proprietary?
> into a market dominated by smaller, faster,
> less expensive models
smaller models are missing the major factor that it is built on -- the
one that says it's idiotic to compare to anything else.
Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
(I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
ripped off, right?)
It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
phone for that customer.
It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
they didn't make anything for that customer at all!
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-22, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> has close to that screen res.
iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
technology LCDs
> it isn't particularly slow processing
> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the worst
major carrier in the US.
> Just what are you calling proprietary?
As a phone, it isn't particularly proprietary, but as an Internet access
device it is. The Internet access device market is one in which the
entire firmware (not just selected pieces) is open source, and in which
people can, and do, produce and distribute their own modified firmware.
> Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
> iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
> good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
height (preferably 600, 768, or more). It is not "the real Internet" if
you have to zoom out to an unreadable level to see page layout, then zoom
in to read the text. It is not "the real Internet" if web designers have
to create special CSS to "optimize" for your device.
LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.
I can't get over how HUGE the pixels are in iPhone. Maybe you think that
that is decent image resolution, but to me it is like looking at a
newspaper.
> (I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
> more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
> ripped off, right?)
That argument doesn't wash. Three year old screen technology (and yes,
320x480 screens were on phones in Japan in 2004) isn't that expensive.
> It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
> phone for that customer.
> It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
> they didn't make anything for that customer at all!
These arguments may be correct. The problem is that certain cretins (most
notably Oxford) claim that iPhone is the be-all and end-all for everybody.
iPhone's legitimate market is that of a way-cool iPod that is also a phone
and an Internet access device; and its legitimate customers are those who
want a way-cool iPod that is also a phone and an Internet access device.
iPhone is not "the best phone". As a phone, it is mediocre. It is large,
it is expensive, it is locked, it is 2G-only, and its voice performance is
merely adequate. Other products do better in all of these categories.
Remember, we are talking about "as a phone" -- the screen resolution is
irrelevant here.
iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
Case in point. iPod Touch, which started out as iPhone minus the phone,
is failing badly in the market. The question is not "if" Apple will
cancel it, but "when". It is overpriced, both as an iPod and as an
Internet access device. It deletes more than just the phone part of
iPhone, making it much less attractive. Clearly, Apple was worried that
iPod Touch would compete with iPhone, but in the process of making it
non-competitive with iPhone they made it non-competitive with the Nokia
N800.
iPhone is not a business tool at all. It lacks the business tools found
in smart phones. The few executives who tried iPhone as a substitute for
Blackberry quickly went back to their Blackberry.
Nobody, nobody!!, is disputing that iPhone is king of the "way-cool iPod
that is also a phone and an Internet access device" market. For people
who want that sort of thing, iPhone is perfect.
Nonetheless, iPhone is not a serious player in the phone market, nor the
Internet access device market, nor the business tool market. Nor is
iPhone a serious player in the teenager market (way too geeky for the
girls, way too nerdish for most of the boys). iPhone is a toy for adult,
primarily male, nerds who play with technological toys but don't really
*need* it.
iPhone will have at least one follow-on product. But it has pretty much
gotten as much market share as it is going to get; and the successor
iPhone will cannibalize previous sales more than gain new market.
As noted above, iPod Touch is toast, barring a major price drop (e.g.,
$175 for the 8GB version and $250 for the 16GB version). Expect to see
that kind of pricing at firesale if Apple does not buy them back.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
| |
| Tinman 2007-11-22, 3:33 pm |
| Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs
>
Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
kinds of ridiculous assertions.
Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
recently-introduced "iPhone killers."
But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.
>
> Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the
> worst major carrier in the US.
They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM, allowed them
to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone as a first-release
would have been a disaster. At least try to think it through.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your post as your opening comments were
ludicrous. You are no better than Oxford, perhaps worse.
--
Mike
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-22, 3:33 pm |
| In article <alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711220930110.11691@pangtzu.panda.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs
There is a much smaller portable device with resolution of 960x640? What
is it? That would be more than twice the resolution of the Nokia E90,
which is more expensive than the iPhone and heavier.
....
> I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
> 320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
> pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
> height (preferably 600, 768, or more).
That would be very nice. What device that connects via the cell network
and is small enough to be about as convenient as the iPhone meets those
requirements?
The closest I could come was the E90, with 800x352, but it had enough
other problems so that I sent it back.
....
> LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
> iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
> on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.
Is that device a cell phone?
Also, I'm not sure how much good additional resolution does without
additional screen size.
....
> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
But isn't a phone. And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-22, 3:33 pm |
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:5qm2koF10ss2nU1
@mid.individual.net:
>
> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone
> as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try to think
> it through.
Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to the FCC
long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into development. They
also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-22, 3:33 pm |
| In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:
> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.
>
The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution. It's
also heavier and more expensive. It does have a 3G connection--provided
you are in Europe where the frequency it uses is supported.
And the current software, at least by my experience, is pretty bad.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| Tinman 2007-11-22, 3:33 pm |
| CozmicDebris wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>
> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T
You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust any of
your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.
The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is AT&T.
Deal with it and stop the whining.
--
Mike
| |
| Tinman 2007-11-22, 3:33 pm |
| David Friedman wrote:
> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>
> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> It's also heavier and more expensive.
That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
nonetheless.
Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
--
Mike
| |
|
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post 5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net on
11/22/07 2:19 PM:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
> phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
> released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
> iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
> nonetheless.
>
> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
> have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
> from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
> which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
>
Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his other
BS claims:
* Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
* Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
* I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.
* He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
pointed to.
He never managed to support any of those claims. Funny that, eh?
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-22, 10:33 pm |
| Snit < CSMA@gallopinginsani
ty.com> wrote in
news:C36B41EF. 9A91F%CSMA@galloping
insanity.com:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post
> 5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net on 11/22/07 2:19 PM:
>
> Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his
> other BS claims:
>
You probably could if he was responding to me, numbnuts.
Damn, Shit- you are clueless.
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-22, 10:33 pm |
| In article <5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.
Pretty close.
480x320=153,600
800x352=281,600
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-22, 10:33 pm |
| "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:5qm8vqFvpqrdU1@
mid.individual.net:
> CozmicDebris wrote:
>
> You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust
> any of your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.
And the amount of distress that will cause me will probably keep me awake
for the next few hours.
>
> The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is
> AT&T. Deal with it and stop the whining.
>
>
Who's whining, Rainman? The facts are well documented- Apple's original
network of choice was Verizon, and they were shown the door by Verizon.
The original iPhone was designed as a CDMA phone, and submitted to the FCC
as such. Only after being turned down did the GSM phone miraculously
appear.
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
> Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
> kinds of ridiculous assertions.
> Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
> recently-introduced "iPhone killers."
You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.
iPhone, by claiming to be an Internet access device instead of just a
phone, must be compared by the standards of mobile devices.
Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone, yet
has twice (640x480) the number of pixels as iPhone (320x480). Sony UX
series has a screen which is only slightly larger than that, but is a
whopping 1024x600 pixels.
The difference is density. iPhone has HUGE pixels, and looks like a
newspaper photo. Apple bought some leftover LCDs from that Japanese phone
makers used 3 years ago (I know all about 320x480 phones, they were common
in Japan in late 2004).
While you iPhone fanboys are oohing and aahing over your old technology
LCDs, people with real mobile devices are using real screens. So are
phone users in Japan.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-22, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
> But isn't a phone.
It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
Wi-Fi.
> And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.
iPhone 135g
N800 206g
In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-22, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711221917030.4308@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
>
> It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
> used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
> Wi-Fi.
>
>
> iPhone 135g
> N800 206g
>
> In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?
I looked it up on Amazon.com and it gave "Weight: 1.32 pounds" under
"technical details" (not under "shipping weight"). That's about four
times the iPhone's weight.
Checking another source it gives 7.3 oz, which is about your figure.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Nor does it emerge from attempts to create a single authoritative voice
on scientific truth--which is part of what irritates me about the IPCC.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| Tinman 2007-11-23, 12:33 pm |
| Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>
> You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.
That makes you a fool for participating in this discussion: no one but you
was talking about that.
> iPhone, by claiming to be an Internet access device instead of just a
> phone, must be compared by the standards of mobile devices.
>
"Must be" in your mind only. To everyone else--or at least those not
inflicted with an unhealthy hatred of the device--it's a phone.
> Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone,
And any laptop blows that toy out of the water.
You are merely making yourself look foolish with these kind of assertions.
But as I recall this isn't the first time...
--
Mike
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-24, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
> I looked it up on Amazon.com and it gave "Weight: 1.32 pounds" under
> "technical details" (not under "shipping weight"). That's about four
> times the iPhone's weight.
FYI, there are three weights to consider, each successively greater:
(1) the weight of the unit itself.
(2) the weight of the unit in its box with all the accessories, manuals,
and packaging.
(3) the shipping weight, which adds the shipping container, shipping
packaging, advertising fliers, invoice, etc.
Amazon quotes you the latter two weights. Thus, Amazon's weight for iPod
Touch is 13 ounces. That does not make iPod Touch twice as heavy as the
Nokia N800.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-24, 12:33 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
> Mark Crispin wrote:
>
> That makes you a fool for participating in this discussion: no one but you
> was talking about that.
Wrong, bunkie. If you're talking about phones, then the war is over.
As a phone, the iPhone is a loser. It is GSM/EDGE only (no 3G), is
locked, is ridiculously overpriced, has mediocre voice performance, and
lacks important features that are standard on all but the most bottom-line
phones.
Apple fanboys glom onto iPhone's web browser, Wi-Fi, and 320x480 screen,
without realizing that those capabilities HAVE NO VALUE for a phone.
Those are mobile device features.
The moment you start talking about mobile devices, you have to judge the
product by the standards of mobile devices. And by those standards iPhone
is also inferior.
One way, it's a shitty phone. The other way, it's a shitty mobile device.
Either way, it is overpriced.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "it's a phone, so you can't
judge it by the standards of mobile devices" then turn around and say
"it's a mobile device, which makes it better than a less expensive phone
with greater phone capabilities."
> "Must be" in your mind only. To everyone else--or at least those not
> inflicted with an unhealthy hatred of the device--it's a phone.
I don't really care about iPhone at all. My disdain is for fanboys.
I don't want to kill Apple as a company either. Apple serves an important
purpose; it keeps Microsoft honest. Apple also provides an unending
source of amusement with its silly fanboys.
> And any laptop blows that toy out of the water.
Of course. That goes without saying. Nobody in his right mind would
claim that a Nokia N800 is a contender in the laptop market. It's much
too slow with completely inadequate memory and storage.
The mobile devices that crossover to laptops are the UMPCs, such as the
Sony UX. But UMPCs have their own disadvantages; they are too large and
heavy for much mobile device use, and are too cramped for laptop use.
iPhone is also a crossover, this time between phones and mobile devices.
If it is priced competitively and unlocked, it might have a future;
although that low-resolution screen needs to be upgraded sooner rather
than later. Nonetheless, it is neither the ultimate phone nor the
ultimate mobile device, except in the feverish minds of fanboys.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
| |
| Tinman 2007-11-24, 3:33 pm |
| Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>
>
> Wrong, bunkie. If you're talking about phones, then the war is over.
What are you, twelve? Grow up.
>
> I don't really care about iPhone at all. My disdain is for fanboys.
Your disdain is apparently meant for yourself, based on your overly-dramatic
writing "style" (over a phone--you ain't fooling anyone with the "I don't
really care about the iPhone" nonsense).
As for "fanboy" your posts are as out of touch with reality as any fanboy
posts I've seen, characterized by changing arguments midstream and never
really addressing core points (certainly not rationally). But like a hamster
on its wheel, you'll keep up your anti-iPhone campaign, never actually
getting anywhere. Too funny...
--
Mike
| |
| Mark Crispin 2007-11-25, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
> Your disdain is apparently meant for yourself, based on your overly-dramatic
> writing "style" (over a phone--you ain't fooling anyone with the "I don't
> really care about the iPhone" nonsense).
No, my distain is for fanboys, and especially Oxford. But I'll whack you
on your noggin with a clue-by-four if you insist.
I was offered an iPhone. I turned it down.
> As for "fanboy" your posts are as out of touch with reality as any fanboy
> posts I've seen, characterized by changing arguments midstream and never
> really addressing core points (certainly not rationally). But like a hamster
> on its wheel, you'll keep up your anti-iPhone campaign, never actually
> getting anywhere. Too funny...
All this means that you can't answer the criticisms:
As a mobile phone, iPhone omits many standard features of modern mobile
phones and is locked to an obsolete EDGE network.
As a mobile device, iPhone has inadequate screen resolution, doesn't
support current web technology, and doesn't allow third-party apps (not
yet, anyway).
As a high-end MP3 player, iPhone's memory capability is woefully
inadequate.
It's a jack of all trades, and master of none. Nobody would buy it if it
was called the Microsoft Zune phone instead of the Apple iPhone.
iPhone is an overpriced and overhyped flash in the pan. Now that every
fanboy who wanted one has one, there's no more market. iPhone will not
kill other mobile phones, nor seize control of the mobile phone market for
Apple.
iPod Touch, iPhone's ugly sister, is in worse shape. Just a day after
Black Friday, Wal-Mart is selling it for $50 less than list price. The
iPod models which are selling are the less expensive and higher capacity
models. iPod Touch will be dead shortly.
Even worse news for Apple is that the EU seems to disapprove of iPhone's
business model. Like Microsoft, Apple seems to think that it is above EU
law, and it is now finding out otherwise.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-25, 12:33 pm |
| Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> As a mobile phone, iPhone omits many standard features of modern mobile
> phones and is locked to an obsolete EDGE network.
but why would you use the obsolete EDGE network OR the obsolete 3G
network? MOST iPhone users are going to use the faster 802.11 connection
anyway. You only use EDGE or 3G if you are in a remote area.
> As a mobile device, iPhone has inadequate screen resolution, doesn't
> support current web technology, and doesn't allow third-party apps (not
> yet, anyway).
This clearly shows Mark has never used, nor touched an iPhone, it's the
clearest screen in the industry, even clearer than Nokia's phone that
has a higher pixel count. Mark doesn't understand screen technologies,
nor WebKit.
> As a high-end MP3 player, iPhone's memory capability is woefully
> inadequate.
And it's never been sold as such. From a capacity point of view it's not
a high end MP3 player, it's middle of the road but with a huge 8GB of
flash ram for 2,000 songs, deal with it. iTunes easily lets you slide in
new sets automatically every time you sync so it's not an issue of the
iPhone, it's an issue of your ignorance on how iTunes and the iPhone
work.
> It's a jack of all trades, and master of none. Nobody would buy it if it
> was called the Microsoft Zune phone instead of the Apple iPhone.
It does have the best battery life, most full featured MP3 player, best
video screen on a cell phone, best syncing, best web browser, faster
connection to data that "most" phones, best screen resolution, best
resale value, has visual voice mail, only phone to have multi-touch,
thinnest, scratch proof, easiest to use, etc, etc. People buy them since
they know Apple created it, they wouldn't buy a MS phone for the same
reason.
> iPhone is an overpriced and overhyped flash in the pan. Now that every
> fanboy who wanted one has one, there's no more market. iPhone will not
> kill other mobile phones, nor seize control of the mobile phone market for
> Apple.
actually, for the feature set, it's the lowest price phone you can
purchase. $399 or less buys you a lot you can't find on other phones.
(see above) The iPhone is for people that demand quality in their lives,
you don't... and that's fine.
> iPod Touch, iPhone's ugly sister, is in worse shape. Just a day after
> Black Friday, Wal-Mart is selling it for $50 less than list price. The
> iPod models which are selling are the less expensive and higher capacity
> models. iPod Touch will be dead shortly.
And the iPod Touch is the best selling "revenue" MP3 player on the
market today. Nobody is even close to matching the specs for the low
price. Will Apple be able to build enough of them for Christmas is the
only remaining question.
The "iPod Touch will be dead shortly." What a LAUGH Mark!
Translation from the book of Mark: "iPod Touch will become the biggest
seller in the history of MP3 players"
> Even worse news for Apple is that the EU seems to disapprove of iPhone's
> business model. Like Microsoft, Apple seems to think that it is above EU
> law, and it is now finding out otherwise.
Yes, and Apple has addressed that already, it simply means more sales
for Apple and more access for citizens in the EU to the world's greatest
cell phone.
The EU loves the iPhone, the big event in France is coming up on Nov
29th! Are you going to fly out for the launch?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/16orange.html
-
| |
|
|
Oxford wrote:
<happy talk omitted>
Over-rated, over-hyped, with deliveries under-performing expectations,
which explains why suppliers like IMMR are seeing their share price tank.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-25, 3:33 pm |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-7C389E.11385925112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
>
> It does have the best battery life,
With others duplicating this in real life (not test) situations.
> most full featured MP3 player,
Hardly.
> best video screen on a cell phone,
I don't know many people that stare at their screen while on a call.
> best syncing,
Far from it. It is not seamlees, as most other phones on the market
have.
> best web browser,
Not true.
> faster connection to data that "most" phones,
Not even close.
> best screen resolution,
Um- no.
> best resale value,
Check back in a year when they are going for $50 on ebay.
> has visual voice mail,
Come to find out, others have that ability as well.
> only phone to have
> multi-touch,
Toy
> thinnest,
You mean ONE of the thinnest
> scratch proof, easiest to use,
Transaltion- made for simpletons
> etc, etc. People
> buy them since they know Apple created it,
They buy it because of the viral marketing. They'll soon dump it when
they find all the things it doesn't do.
> they wouldn't buy a MS
> phone for the same reason.
And yet there are more MS phones in the hands of the public than Apple
phones. Hmmmm....
>
Welcom back, little Oxturd. We missed your stupidity.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> but why would you use the obsolete EDGE network OR the obsolete 3G
> network?
Because EDGE covers about 3 million square miles of the U.S. and *OPEN*
WiFi covers only 2 thousand square miles. Rough ad-hoc estimate.
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Because EDGE covers about 3 million square miles of the U.S. and *OPEN*
> WiFi covers only 1 million square miles. Rough ad-hoc estimate.
yes, and if you are in a tight spot you can resort to EDGE or 3G, but
most of the time, you'll just choose 802.11g, it makes more sense,
faster and is free.
| |
|
| "Oxford" < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-19C7F1.16113125112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> yes, and if you are in a tight spot you can resort to EDGE or 3G, but
> most of the time, you'll just choose 802.11g, it makes more sense,
> faster and is free.
i've travelled quite a bit this month- and at lax, dfw, dca, and phl, there
was no free wi-fi. only one hotel i stayed at had free wi-fi. most coffee
shops and restaurants don't have free wi-fi. where are you getting the
impression that free wi-fi is available in most places?
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
> With others duplicating this in real life (not test) situations.
those are real world test situations, the iphone always gets the best on
battery life scores of all smartphones.
>
> Hardly.
don't make me laugh Cozmic, name a single MP3 player that has more
features than iTunes and the iPhone.
>
> I don't know many people that stare at their screen while on a call.
having the largest screen on the smallest cell phone makes everything
clearer to the eye. buttons are bigger, the keys on the keyboard are
bigger, the browser is bigger, movies are bigger, album art is bigger,
etc.
>
> Far from it. It is not seamlees, as most other phones on the market
> have.
then name one better than the iPhone / iPod and iSync...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/isync/
trust me, there aren't any.
>
> Not true.
then name one better... that's all i ask. which cell phone has a full
browser that operates just like a desktop or laptop browser... but with
a finger?
you are "out of touch" with reality cozmic. nobody else can do this...
http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/index.html#safari
>
> Not even close.
name one cell phone with 802.11n... if there is one, it's not
mainstream, nor does it have the features of the iphone. 3G is about
twice as slow as 802.11g. no thanks, i'll stick with the faster speed.
>
> Um- no.
then name a single phone with better resolution, smaller package,
crisper screen. bet you can't.
>
> Check back in a year when they are going for $50 on ebay.
perhaps in 4-5 years, but the iPhone will be the top value of all cell
phones from purchase date to resale date. apple stuff is like the Volvo
or BMW class machines. sure they go down a little bit, but they last for
decades and hold their value well.
>
> Come to find out, others have that ability as well.
like who cozmic? name a Verizon phone with this feature, name a t-mobile
phone with this feature in the US. nope, none of them have this...
an industry first...
http://www.apple.com/iphone/feature....html#voicemail
>
> Toy
only because you can't afford high quality toys.
>
> You mean ONE of the thinnest
it's the "thinnest" phone with this many features, BAR NONE... apple has
always been the world's leader in creating the most elegant devices with
the least amount of chips, the world marvels at them for this. the
iphone is a breakthrough product in thinnest form factor for this many
features. no other phone is this advanced... BAR NONE.
>
> Transaltion- made for simpletons
Translation for the real world: It's built to last.
>
> They buy it because of the viral marketing. They'll soon dump it when
> they find all the things it doesn't do.
Like what doesn't it do? It's the most full featured phone on the
market, what exactly doesn't it do that you need someone to help explain
to you that it does?
>
> And yet there are more MS phones in the hands of the public than Apple
> phones. Hmmmm....
MS has never made a single phone... you are talking about the Newton OS
they copied from Apple years ago, and still trying to foist it on the
"blue collar" workabee crowd.
> Welcom back, little Oxturd. We missed your stupidity.
so you can't even spell welcome? talk about stupid... too funny.
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article <alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711242256560.14460@pangtzu.panda.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> It's a jack of all trades, and master of none. Nobody would buy it if it
> was called the Microsoft Zune phone instead of the Apple iPhone.
>
I think you are wrong.
Quite aside from the question of function, on which I don't know enough
to offer an opinion, it is a strikingly attractive piece of machinery. I
expect I will continue to resist the temptation to buy one, since it
isn't designed to do what I want done, but the temptation is still real.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-7C389E.11385925112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> but why would you use the obsolete EDGE network OR the obsolete 3G
> network? MOST iPhone users are going to use the faster 802.11 connection
> anyway. You only use EDGE or 3G if you are in a remote area.
I don't think this is correct. Do you have any actual data to support
the (implied) claim that most people in the U.S. are in range of either
a free WiFi network or one they already have bought the right to use? I
would have thought it was a small minority.
That might change at some point in the past, but current buyers are
going to be basing their decisions on what is currently available.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article <wEm2j.71286$YL5.13252@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> i've travelled quite a bit this month- and at lax, dfw, dca, and phl, there
> was no free wi-fi. only one hotel i stayed at had free wi-fi. most coffee
> shops and restaurants don't have free wi-fi. where are you getting the
> impression that free wi-fi is available in most places?
In my experience, in the U.S., midlevel hotels--Hampton Inn and the
like--almost always have free WiFi. Low end hotels either have free WiFi
or none. High end hotels have WiFi but charge about ten dollars a day
for it.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article <ddfr-041555.15223625112007@news.isp.giganews.com>,
David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article
> <linuxlovesosx-7C389E.11385925112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think this is correct. Do you have any actual data to support
> the (implied) claim that most people in the U.S. are in range of either
> a free WiFi network or one they already have bought the right to use? I
> would have thought it was a small minority.
>
> That might change at some point in the past, but current buyers are
> going to be basing their decisions on what is currently available.
Oops. That should have been:
"That might change at some point in the future."
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
DF0ECA.17092025112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>
> those are real world test situations, the iphone always gets the best
on
> battery life scores of all smartphones.
You need to reread the fine print on the website. They admit that the
phone used was not a production model and the network situations were
not on the consumer network.
>
>
> don't make me laugh Cozmic, name a single MP3 player that has more
> features than iTunes and the iPhone.
The list is endless, unless you have specific features in mind.
>
>
> having the largest screen on the smallest cell phone
It's not the smallest cell phone
> makes everything
> clearer to the eye. buttons are bigger, the keys on the keyboard are
> bigger, the browser is bigger, movies are bigger, album art is bigger,
> etc.
And none of that matters on a phone. Of course, with it not having
voice dialing, people would have to resort to the old way of calling
people- having to dial the number manually. I thought this was supposed
to be cutting edge?
>
>
> then name one better than the iPhone / iPod and iSync...
Any Blackberry.
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/isync/
>
> trust me, there aren't any.
>
>
> then name one better... that's all i ask. which cell phone has a full
> browser that operates just like a desktop or laptop browser... but
with
> a finger?
You need to catch up on the posts. The iPhone has been proven to not
function like a full browser. Larry posted something earlier in the
rweek.
>
> you are "out of touch" with reality cozmic. nobody else can do this...
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/index.html#safari
>
>
> name one cell phone with 802.11n... if there is one, it's not
> mainstream, nor does it have the features of the iphone. 3G is about
> twice as slow as 802.11g. no thanks, i'll stick with the faster speed.
For the last time- 802.11x does not guarantee ANY speed. You arer a
newbie idiot that
>
>
> then name a single phone with better resolution, smaller package,
> crisper screen. bet you can't.
>
>
> perhaps in 4-5 years, but the iPhone will be the top value of all cell
> phones from purchase date to resale date. apple stuff is like the
Volvo
> or BMW class machines. sure they go down a little bit, but they last
for
> decades and hold their value well.
>
>
> like who cozmic? name a Verizon phone with this feature, name a t-
mobile
> phone with this feature in the US. nope, none of them have this...
>
> an industry first...
Again- catch up on the posts around here. The technology has been
available for cell phones for quite some time.
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/feature....html#voicemail
>
>
>
> only because you can't afford high quality toys.
>
>
> it's the "thinnest" phone with this many features, BAR NONE
That's not what you said, pinhead. And the list of features missing is
almost as long as the list of features available.
.... apple has
> always been the world's leader in creating the most elegant devices
with
> the least amount of chips, the world marvels at them for this. the
> iphone is a breakthrough product in thinnest form factor for this many
> features. no other phone is this advanced... BAR NONE.
It's not advanced- it's mid-tier technology at best.
>
>
> Translation for the real world: It's built to last.
>
when[color=darkred]
>
> Like what doesn't it do? It's the most full featured phone on the
> market, what exactly doesn't it do that you need someone to help
explain
> to you that it does?
>
Apple[color=darkred]
>
> MS has never made a single phone... you are talking about the Newton
OS
> they copied from Apple years ago, and still trying to foist it on the
> "blue collar" workabee crowd.
Mighty powerful words for such a moron. Any proof?
>
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> yes, and if you are in a tight spot you can resort to EDGE or 3G, but
> most of the time, you'll just choose 802.11g, it makes more sense,
> faster and is free.
MOST of the time WiFi is NOT available and much less FREE, so...it does
NOT make sense.
With EDGE you can seamless roam from location to location for hundreds
of miles without renegotiating, unlike any 200 ft. WiFi.
| |
|
| David Friedman wrote:
> In article <wEm2j.71286$YL5.13252@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> In my experience, in the U.S., midlevel hotels--Hampton Inn and the
> like--almost always have free WiFi. Low end hotels either have free WiFi
> or none. High end hotels have WiFi but charge about ten dollars a day
> for it.
If there was a mid-level hotel every 500 ft, then it might work. But
there isn't so it doesn't.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article <ddfr-041555.15223625112007@news.isp.giganews.com>,
David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article
> <linuxlovesosx-7C389E.11385925112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think this is correct. Do you have any actual data to support
> the (implied) claim that most people in the U.S. are in range of either
> a free WiFi network or one they already have bought the right to use?
Hey, Oxford--let me chime in with this request as well.
Do you, Oxford, have any actual data to support your continued claim
that most people in the United States are in range of either a free WiFi
network or else one they already have bought the right to use?
I'm sure you'll answer this just as soon as you, the expert on Steve
Jobs and Apple, tell us all who Adele Goldberg is and what crucial role
she played in Steve Jobs's life.
In other words, you'll have some story about how free WiFi is available
with milk and cookies anywhere.
| |
|
|
DTC wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>
>
>
> MOST of the time WiFi is NOT available and much less FREE, so...it does
> NOT make sense.
>
> With EDGE you can seamless roam from location to location for hundreds
> of miles without renegotiating, unlike any 200 ft. WiFi.
Bingo. Handoffs are hell.
| |
|
| In article <kSo2j.26944$lD6.25628@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> If there was a mid-level hotel every 500 ft, then it might work. But
> there isn't so it doesn't.
I use my favorite coffee place, Coffee Ben and Tea Leaf. Otherwise,
there are a zillion other small places (not Starbucks or LAX, who use
the pay T-Mobile). Most have signs inn the window. Smart.
Found places in almost every small town I've been in lately.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
|
Kurt wrote:
> In article <kSo2j.26944$lD6.25628@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I use my favorite coffee place, Coffee Ben and Tea Leaf. Otherwise,
> there are a zillion other small places (not Starbucks or LAX, who use
> the pay T-Mobile). Most have signs inn the window. Smart.
> Found places in almost every small town I've been in lately.
>
Try to get a wifi connection while on I-80 in PA, all 250+ miles of it.
No problem with GPRS or EDGE, including the seamless handoffs.
| |
| CozmicDebris 2007-11-25, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-8367D5.18092325112007@news.giganews.com:
>
> I use my favorite coffee place, Coffee Ben and Tea Leaf. Otherwise,
> there are a zillion other small places (not Starbucks or LAX, who use
> the pay T-Mobile). Most have signs inn the window. Smart.
> Found places in almost every small town I've been in lately.
>
But it's even nicer not having to "find" a connection. No snipe hunts
necessary and my connection can be handed off effortlessly if I decide to
move. After all, that's the whole point- to be "mobile".
| |
|
| "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-8367D5.18092325112007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <kSo2j.26944$lD6.25628@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> I use my favorite coffee place, Coffee Ben and Tea Leaf. Otherwise,
> there are a zillion other small places (not Starbucks or LAX, who use
> the pay T-Mobile). Most have signs inn the window. Smart.
> Found places in almost every small town I've been in lately.
i like coffee bean as well, but it's no where near ubiquitous- for example,
i just did a search on their web site and they have NO locations in
philadelphia AT ALL... or dallas... or new york city... only 3 in san
francisco... tons in socal... is coffee bean primarily socal?
| |
|
| ed wrote:
> i like coffee bean as well, but it's no where near ubiquitous- for
> example, i just did a search on their web site and they have NO
> locations in philadelphia AT ALL... or dallas... or new york city...
> only 3 in san francisco... tons in socal... is coffee bean primarily
> socal?
Wait another year and SJ will deploy iBean coffee shops and free WiFi to
support his iPhone will be everywhere.
| |
|
| In article <5nq2j.65820$RX.52467@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> "Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:labolide-8367D5.18092325112007@news.giganews.com...
>
> i like coffee bean as well, but it's no where near ubiquitous- for example,
> i just did a search on their web site and they have NO locations in
> philadelphia AT ALL... or dallas... or new york city... only 3 in san
> francisco... tons in socal... is coffee bean primarily socal?
Maybe, and Pacific Northwest. Better coffee than Starbucks (too bitter)
which got me there in the first place.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| David Friedman 2007-11-26, 4:33 am |
| In article <labolide-8367D5.18092325112007@news.giganews.com>,
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article <kSo2j.26944$lD6.25628@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>
> I use my favorite coffee place, Coffee Ben and Tea Leaf. Otherwise,
> there are a zillion other small places (not Starbucks or LAX, who use
> the pay T-Mobile). Most have signs inn the window. Smart.
> Found places in almost every small town I've been in lately.
"Panera" is a chain of salad and sandwich places we like that provides
free WiFi.
My impression is that it isn't terribly hard to find free WiFi if you
are looking for it--at this point we pretty much make it a requirement
for motels when driving across the country. But there is a large
difference between "somewhere in this town there is a place with free
WiFi, and with a little effort I can find it," which is fine if what you
need to do is to spend some time each day sending and receiving your
email, and "anywhere I am there is free WiFi," which is more relevant if
you want to be able to make phone calls or browse the web while driving
across the country or ... .
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-26, 7:33 am |
| In article
<59abe8d8-17ac-4282-9a49- 3d9d271dceff@d4g2000
prg.googlegroups.com>,
digi <jhardee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just as much as I like using my devices, I like playing with them and
> tweaking them to get more out of them. Whether its cooking a custom
> WM6 ROM for my ppc-6700, flashing java enabled firmware to my v3c
> razr, or flashing dd-wrt firmware on my wrt54g router, I just dont
> enjoy "stock".
Not married, are you.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-26, 10:33 am |
| In article
<0f1407d9-830d-4123-b863- e367bb6bf988@e6g2000
prf.googlegroups.com>,
digi <jhardee@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see what my love life has to do with anything we are talking
> about here
Specifically, your comment about how you "just don't enjoy stock", that
you have to tweak.
You aren't married. No, girlfriends don't count. Wives only.
Please come back and tell us how well your "changing away from stock"
works on the wife.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-27, 7:33 am |
| In article
<3aa79dab-401c-4566-a6c9- 40607d469cab@f3g2000
hsg.googlegroups.com>,
earthtodigi <jhardee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, my current girlfriend, who lives with me, and without a doubt
> will one day be my wife, she has no problem what so ever with the
> nerdy things I do.
aw, isn't that cute.
Girlfriends don't count. You'll see.
And when you try to tweak her away from stock...
| |
|
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post
elmop-A4972A. 20091425112007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com on 11/25/07 6:09 PM:
> In article <ddfr-041555.15223625112007@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey, Oxford--let me chime in with this request as well.
>
> Do you, Oxford, have any actual data to support your continued claim
> that most people in the United States are in range of either a free WiFi
> network or else one they already have bought the right to use?
Maybe not now... but maybe soon?
<http://meraki.com/>
> I'm sure you'll answer this just as soon as you, the expert on Steve
> Jobs and Apple, tell us all who Adele Goldberg is and what crucial role
> she played in Steve Jobs's life.
>
> In other words, you'll have some story about how free WiFi is available
> with milk and cookies anywhere.
>
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
| |
|
| Snit wrote:
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post
>
> Maybe not now... but maybe soon?
Not "maybe now", but definitively beyond any shadow of doubt most people
are NOT in range of free and open WiFi.
Not "maybe soon", try never...by the time almost to never comes around,
WiFi will be replaced.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-11-28, 3:33 pm |
| At 27 Nov 2007 14:23:07 -0700 Snit wrote:
>
> Maybe not now... but maybe soon?
>
> <http://meraki.com/>
Why is it that these "share your access to create open WiFi for everyone"
ideas are always basically just store fronts for proprietary routers and
APs?
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-28, 3:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why is it that these "share your access to create open WiFi for everyone"
> ideas are always basically just store fronts for proprietary routers and
> APs?
Going forward, it's inevitable the entire planet is going to be governed
by free wireless access, so why fight it Todd?
These companies are providing a service so need to tie into "known"
hardware to make the world free of greedy cell phone companies.
Soon, you'll see a plethora of software only solutions like LinSpot that
make any $10 wireless router free, add in a couple 100 million routers
and the goal for "everyone" will be achieved.
http://www.linspot.com/
The life cycle of cell phone companies is coming to a quick close, Apple
knows it, thus the iPhone, which is the world No. 1 wifi phone will be
the winner for decades to come.
Looks like Orange in France has already sold 50,000 iPhones even before
they came on sale! too funny...
The cell world is about to massively change Todd, I know it, most Apple
users know it, but you don't.
http://snipurl.com/1ubzw
this is the most advanced, cheapest micro laptop you can buy!
* 749 euros ($1,109) unlocked iPhone, no contract
* 649 euros ($956) locked iPhone, no contract
* 549 euros ($809) unlocked iPhone, with Orange contract
* 399 euros ($588) locked iPhone, with Orange contract
* 100 euros ($147) to unlock a locked iPhone
What a KILLER page!
http://www.apple.com/fr/
Enjoy!
-
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not fighting it- I'll happily embrace it if/when a workable model
> emerges. A rag-tag assortment of home uses with $40 proprietary APs isn't
> it, however.
ah, just like Apple was a "rag-tag" company that changed computing
forever in 1976-77... you just aren't of pioneering stock Todd, you are
a weak, "follower", not a headstrong developer like me and most all Mac
users. That's fine of course, but we can still laugh at your weakness
for pushing technology forward approach.
$40 today will be $20 in 12 months, will be $10 in 24 months will be $5
in 36. Don't you understand how computing works? It seems you are still
lost in the obsolete Cell World, none of that matters now that Apple
controls the Cell Market.
>
> Why is a cellphone company "greedy" when it offers a competitive service?
> Unlimited web/e-mail access is $6/month from my provider (T-Mobile.)
> Hardly seems "greedy" to me.
A "competitive service" in a well functioning cell market would be $5 or
less for unlimited data and unlimited voice calls by "this point in
time"...
but for some reason... the price is always $39, $49, $59... and that is
CLEARLY COLLUSION! and Apple will have no tolerance for such weakness in
a market.
The Cell Industry is highly uncompetitive, and we all know that, so
Apple will set all the players straight, it's just how Apple works when
it takes over a market.
>
> Oh, is this the new flavor of the month, Oky? Last time you were hawking
> www.fon.com.
??? not sure what you mean? Fon is just like:
http://meraki.com/
LinSpot is very different. It makes ANY wireless router FREE, or "for
pay" if you want to profit from your connection.
"Sell your Air" is their moto...
http://www.linspot.com/
>
> That tired line again? If Apple was going to "kill off" cellular with WiFi-
> based devices, why not have simply launched the cellular-less Touch with a
> VoIP client?
Patience my friend, Patience... Apple only moves in strict, solid
directions, VoIP is one of them, take a look at iChatAV! that's the
future of all phone calls, but you wouldn't understand that yet...
> Apple's sleeping with AT&T now- the $10/month they get from every cellular
> iPhone customer gives then a Vested interest in keeping cellular alive and
> well.
>
> Between AT&T and the record Companies, Apple's bed is getting mighty
> crowded! ;-)
Both AT&T and Record companies are mere "puppets" to Apple at this stage
in the game. Apple controls them by revenue alone. Should Apple buy out
AT&T or Universal as has been suggested? Nope! Let them fall on their
own sword, then eat them.
>
> Yep- the consumer has spoken- they want unlocked iPhones.
Yes, and I FULLY AGREE! Apple should sell an unlocked iPhone in the
States as well, but everyone except AT&T is on such an old
infrastructure they can't support high end iPhone features such as
Visual Voice mail, Google Maps, Unlimited Internet, etc. so Apple is
kinda caught in that regard.
>
> That's not a "micro-laptop"- it's an iPod/phone/webtablet.
Sure, but it remains the most advanced product for the price in the Cell
Market, everyone agrees with that.
> This is a micro-laptop:
>
> http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/...or-umpc-haters-
> 246965.php
Oh my god, how primitive! How HUGE, how EXPENSIVE! You can get twice the
power in 1/20th the space with the iPhone, for $200 less.
> It's larger, but it's an actual computer with a decent sized hard-drive and
> no "mobile OS" limitations.
But it's a product failure, won't ever sell above a million units.
> Not to take anything away from your blessed iPhone- it's a neat device for
> what it is, but "micro-laptop," it's not.
The iPhone is the greatest human achievement of this decade (so far)
would love to see a 6x8" version however... Jan 15th is coming up soon,
and I'll be first in line to see it.
-
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-874489.12144428112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> Going forward, it's inevitable the entire planet is going to be governed
> by free wireless access, so why fight it Todd?
"going to be governed by free wireless access"??? I thought your claim
was that there ALREADY IS free wireless access everywhere.
So, Oxford: do you have any actual data to support your continued claim
that most people in the United States are in range of either a free WiFi
network or else one they have already bought to use?
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<linuxlovesosx-05D593.16202328112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
> The iPhone is the greatest human achievement of this decade (so far)
oh, boy. OK, here goes:
what are the four greatest human achievements of the 20th century?
Quick, right off the top of your head.
I can't WAIT to see THAT list from you.
| |
|
|
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> <linuxlovesosx-874489.12144428112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> "going to be governed by free wireless access"??? I thought your claim
> was that there ALREADY IS free wireless access everywhere.
>
> So, Oxford: do you have any actual data to support your continued claim
> that most people in the United States are in range of either a free WiFi
> network or else one they have already bought to use?
>
....And can roam seamlessly between cells/APs...
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> "going to be governed by free wireless access"??? I thought your claim
> was that there ALREADY IS free wireless access everywhere.
and can you point to a single claim where i ever said that?
of course not...
elmo, everyone knows you are a huge fool, but your false claim seals the
deal.
too funny!
> So, Oxford: do you have any actual data to support your continued claim
> that most people in the United States are in range of either a free WiFi
> network or else one they have already bought to use?
i've never said most people... i've simple said 90% of the time you are
in range of open wireless. which remains true.
elmo, as always, plays the fool...
| |
| Oxford 2007-11-28, 10:33 pm |
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> Oxford < linuxlovesosx@supera
rt.com> wrote:
>
>
> oh, boy. OK, here goes:
>
> what are the four greatest human achievements of the 20th century?
but i said of THIS DECADE...
love how you mistakenly move the goal posts... and thought nobody would
catch it...
you've been caught in a lie elmo... or is that liemo?
> Quick, right off the top of your head.
>
> I can't WAIT to see THAT list from you.
yes, now give us greatest human achievement of this decade...
not of your goal post moving.
-
| |
|
| |