On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
>>> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
>>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
>>>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
>>> Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
>>> partnering with Apple.
>>>
>>> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>>> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
>>
>>
>> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
>> capability,
>
>Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
>consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>
>Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
>they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
>Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
>revenue stream to Apple.
No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to
design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide
random access voice mail.
>
>The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
>the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
>of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
>insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.
>
>The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
>the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
>or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.
So you're a Verizon shill ?
You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.
http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/te...er&oref=slogin http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._keyboard.html
A better ipod.
A better "Blackberry" type phone
A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
A better UI.
A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
case presses those buttons.
And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
running Apple's OS X.