balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
> M-M wrote:
>> In article <zmMhi.7854$vq6.6102@fe49.usenetserver.com>,
>> "balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone
>>> that I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is
>>> mostly WORTHLESS.
>>
>> VZW won't allow you to add your own ringtones or transfer photos by
>> BT and that's irritating. It's a pain to have to use the card.
>
> SURE THEY DO, use bitpim if you insist on doing it that way. If you
> still want to use bluetooth you totally missed the whole fucking point
> of my post.
>
>>> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when it
>>> comes to data services.
>>
>> I agree with you there. That's why I'm staying.
>
> Some people want a "personal communications device", some people only
> need bling-bling.
>
>>> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>>> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do.
>>
>> The iPhone is WAY cooler and that's the name of the game and Apple
>> knows that.
>
> "cooler" for what? They did a lot of marketing, paid a lot of people
> to claim how goddamn cool it was on the internet, etc.
>
> The fucking thing is bigger than a Microtac. If big phones are the
> new kewl thing, I guess I'll pull a brick out and start using it (at
> least until Febuary...)
>
>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't
>>> one of them, obviously. They're not in a position to be
>>> competitive with folks like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>>
>> Don't underestimate Apple.
>
> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
> ACTUALLY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

That is just plain wrong with the ipod.

>>> Oh well, nothing like good ol' Usenet. Full of loudmouth jackasses
>>> and the corporate ringers that lead them around...
>>
>> Quite right you are.
>
> How much did apple pay you to blow their goat?