Killer App: Speech-to-Speech Translator Developed For iPhone

Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:

> Say I were to have a friend in a band (I do), and say he were to give me
> a copy of his music in MP3 format (he did), how would I load said music
> without a cable?
>
> Heck, lets take that out of the equation and say I use iTunes. I bought
> some music on iTunes a couple years ago, how would I load it on my
> iPhone today without a cable?

WiFi or BT transfer on your own local setup. At least, that's how I
read the complaint about requiring a cable to sync the iPhone.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #129.
Despite the delicious irony, I will not force two heroes to fight each
other in the arena.

Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:

> >Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
> >
> >> >Can you not buy songs from iTunes when the iPhone is on 3G or WiFi?
> >>
> >> Yes, you can not buy songs from iTunes when an iPhone is on 3G or WiFi.
> >
> >I can, at least when on WiFi.
>
> You, sure can buy music from iTunes you want. You can also not buy
> music from iTunes if you want.

You were saying that you canNOT purchase from iTunes directly onto the
iPhone, implying that any such purchases must be done from a PC or Mac.
Whether someone does or does not by choice buy content from iTunes is
irrelevant to the fact that you CAN.

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection

"But I've always thought--tests are a gift. And great tests are a
great gift. To fail the test is a misfortune. But to refuse the test
is to refuse the gift, and something worse, more irrevocable, than
misfortune." (Cordelia [Lois McMaster Bujold, "Shards of Honor"])

"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:da53f5to5brl0chplfvf2ekg1jagcvgqii@gordol.org ...
> Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
>
>> >Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
>> >
>> >> >Can you not buy songs from iTunes when the iPhone is on 3G or WiFi?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you can not buy songs from iTunes when an iPhone is on 3G or
>> >> WiFi.
>> >
>> >I can, at least when on WiFi.
>>
>> You, sure can buy music from iTunes you want. You can also not buy
>> music from iTunes if you want.
>
> You were saying that you canNOT purchase from iTunes directly onto the
> iPhone, implying that any such purchases must be done from a PC or Mac.
> Whether someone does or does not by choice buy content from iTunes is
> irrelevant to the fact that you CAN.

He was just engaging in clever (and apparently subtle) word play, following
SMS' quirkily worded question "Can you not buy..."

In message <YChIm.2014$Zu5.144@newsfe24.iad> "Todd Allcock"
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> was claimed to have wrote:

>
>"Jeffrey Kaplan" <nomail@gordol.org> wrote in message
>news:da53f5to5brl0chplfvf2ekg1jagcvgqii@gordol.or g...
>> Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
>>
>>> >Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
>>> >
>>> >> >Can you not buy songs from iTunes when the iPhone is on 3G or WiFi?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, you can not buy songs from iTunes when an iPhone is on 3G or
>>> >> WiFi.
>>> >
>>> >I can, at least when on WiFi.
>>>
>>> You, sure can buy music from iTunes you want. You can also not buy
>>> music from iTunes if you want.
>>
>> You were saying that you canNOT purchase from iTunes directly onto the
>> iPhone, implying that any such purchases must be done from a PC or Mac.
>> Whether someone does or does not by choice buy content from iTunes is
>> irrelevant to the fact that you CAN.
>
>He was just engaging in clever (and apparently subtle) word play, following
>SMS' quirkily worded question "Can you not buy..."
>

My point was more that I don't buy anything from iTunes due to the
proprietary format, unfriendly re-download rules.

In message <da53f5to5brl0chplfvf2ekg1jagcvgqii@gordol.org> Jeffrey
Kaplan <nomail@gordol.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
>
>> >Previously on alt.cellular.attws, DevilsPGD said:
>> >
>> >> >Can you not buy songs from iTunes when the iPhone is on 3G or WiFi?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, you can not buy songs from iTunes when an iPhone is on 3G or WiFi.
>> >
>> >I can, at least when on WiFi.
>>
>> You, sure can buy music from iTunes you want. You can also not buy
>> music from iTunes if you want.
>
>You were saying that you canNOT purchase from iTunes directly onto the
>iPhone, implying that any such purchases must be done from a PC or Mac.

I didn't say you "cannot buy music from iTunes over 3G", I said that you
"can not buy music from iTunes"

In other words, you can choose to not buy music from iTunes via wifi.
You can choose to not buy music from iTunes over 3G. etc.

And yes, that attempt at humour only reaches the overly pedantic.

In article <ebb3f5p8j3qkg919l2g33anmuo3fdl38si@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
<DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> My point was more that I don't buy anything from iTunes due to the
> proprietary format, unfriendly re-download rules.

aac is not a proprietary format and apple is not your backup service.
however, they will let you re-download in some cases. they just don't
want millions of users doing that on a whim. it's a complete waste of
bandwidth.

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:041120091214205990%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <ebb3f5p8j3qkg919l2g33anmuo3fdl38si@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
> <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> My point was more that I don't buy anything from iTunes due to the
>> proprietary format, unfriendly re-download rules.
>
> aac is not a proprietary format and apple is not your backup service.
> however, they will let you re-download in some cases. they just don't
> want millions of users doing that on a whim. it's a complete waste of
> bandwidth.

Why not- it'd be a powerful customer service tool. Audible, the online
audiobook service, allows me to redownload every audio book I've ever
purchased from them "on a whim", some a purchased nearly 10 years ago. (And
I haven't bought a book from them in at least 2 or 3 years.)

In message <041120091214205990%nospam@nospam.invalid> nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:

>In article <ebb3f5p8j3qkg919l2g33anmuo3fdl38si@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
><DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> My point was more that I don't buy anything from iTunes due to the
>> proprietary format, unfriendly re-download rules.
>
>aac is not a proprietary format and apple is not your backup service.

Invented by and for Apple, and not widely supported by anything other
then Apple.

Admittedly it's easier to get music out of AAC into something more
useful these days, but it's still an extra step.

>however, they will let you re-download in some cases. they just don't
>want millions of users doing that on a whim. it's a complete waste of
>bandwidth.

If Apple can't afford the bandwidth and server bill, maybe they should
let me load music on my iPhone over the air from my own sources rather
then having to re-buy music over and over when I happen to want a
specific song but don't have it loaded in advance.

In article <c8h3f5houlh69jok978hg9ijakehkeuv5m@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
<DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> >aac is not a proprietary format and apple is not your backup service.
>
> Invented by and for Apple, and not widely supported by anything other
> then Apple.

wrong.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding#History>

AAC was developed with the cooperation and contributions of companies
including Fraunhofer IIS, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Dolby, Sony
Corporation and Nokia, and was officially declared an international
standard by the Moving Pictures Experts Group in April 1997.

notice no mention of apple and that's over 4 years *before* the ipod
came out.

<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue...ue_detail.htm?
csnumber=43345>

ISO/IEC 13818-7:2006 specifies MPEG-2 Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), a
multi-channel audio coding standard that delivers higher quality than
is achievable when requiring MPEG-1 backwards compatibility.

> Admittedly it's easier to get music out of AAC into something more
> useful these days, but it's still an extra step.

plenty of other devices play aac. a quick search brings up the sony
ericcson w760, samsung highnote, t-mobile g1, motorola krave zn4, nokia
5300 and an alpine cda-9885 car stereo.

> >however, they will let you re-download in some cases. they just don't
> >want millions of users doing that on a whim. it's a complete waste of
> >bandwidth.
>
> If Apple can't afford the bandwidth and server bill, maybe they should
> let me load music on my iPhone over the air from my own sources rather
> then having to re-buy music over and over when I happen to want a
> specific song but don't have it loaded in advance.

they should offer free bandwidth because you didn't bring the music you
wanted to listen to??? wow.

News wrote:

> Whereas AAPL-bots still believe in "Steve's way or the highway".

Perhaps because "Steve's way" saved Apple from being acquired by someone
like Sony, turned the company around, made many stockholders rich, and
gained Apple several hundred million new customers as he turned it from
a computer company into a consumer electronics company.

Most consumers don't care enough about stuff like removable batteries or
Flash support for it to be a deciding factor in purchasing an iPhone.
If anything, it's stuff beyond Apple's control that upsets some
consumers (lack of tethering on AT&T, lack of MMS on AT&T until
recently, and sluggish network performance (AT&T's problem).

[alt.cellular.cingular removed. Cingular no longer exists. Please remove
alt.cellular.cingular from all follow-ups].

The lead that Apple holds in smart phone hardware and applications will
be difficult to challenge. Already we're seeing that Verizon decontented
the hardware on the Droid, making it clear that they are too dense to
understand the attraction of the iPhone. Eventually AT&T will fix their
network, and it'll be good enough that Verizon will not be able to rely
on network quality alone to retain customers.

SMS wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>> Whereas AAPL-bots still believe in "Steve's way or the highway".
>
> Perhaps because "Steve's way" saved Apple from being acquired by someone
> like Sony, turned the company around, made many stockholders rich, and
> gained Apple several hundred million new customers as he turned it from
> a computer company into a consumer electronics company.
>
> Most consumers don't care enough about stuff like removable batteries or
> Flash support for it to be a deciding factor in purchasing an iPhone.
> If anything, it's stuff beyond Apple's control that upsets some
> consumers (lack of tethering on AT&T, lack of MMS on AT&T until
> recently, and sluggish network performance (AT&T's problem).
>
> [alt.cellular.cingular removed. Cingular no longer exists. Please remove
> alt.cellular.cingular from all follow-ups].
>
> The lead that Apple holds in smart phone hardware and applications will
> be difficult to challenge. Already we're seeing that Verizon decontented
> the hardware on the Droid, making it clear that they are too dense to
> understand the attraction of the iPhone. Eventually AT&T will fix their
> network, and it'll be good enough that Verizon will not be able to rely
> on network quality alone to retain customers.


Yeah, right. An AAPL-ologist a day keeps the real innovation away...

News wrote:

> Yeah, right. An AAPL-ologist a day keeps the real innovation away...

Just reality. I'm no fanboi. I have no iPhone (AT&T coverage issues), no
Mac (I run several commercial programs that only run on Windows), no
iPod (well my daughter has one). The bashing of Jobs simply because of
the adoration of idiots like "David Moyer" is not logical. Jobs would
probably be thrilled if he could get the fanbois to control themselves
because in reality they drive away the type of mainstream customers that
Apple needs to attract to grow the company.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4af1f543$0$1652$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> The lead that Apple holds in smart phone hardware and applications will be
> difficult to challenge. Already we're seeing that Verizon decontented the
> hardware on the Droid, making it clear that they are too dense to
> understand the attraction of the iPhone.

In what way has Verizon "decontented" the Droid?

> Eventually AT&T will fix their network, and it'll be good enough that
> Verizon will not be able to rely on network quality alone to retain
> customers.

Not as long as they continue their "Its the Network" brainwashing campaign.
AT&T would have to significantly leap frog Verizon in network size and
quality to undo years of that. It's similar to the iPhone and iPod effect.
Once you have the market share and reputation, it takes a long time to
unseat that lead- say, for example, we accept the Zune HD is a better device
than the iPod for example, (which, at least in some ways, it is.) A "little
better" isn't good enough to win over the multi-generation iPod users with
investments in iPod-specific expansion hardware, significant content
purchases, etc. A ZuneHD would have to offer free content, make your bed,
do the dishes, and convert to Roomba-mode and tidy up to steal entrenched
iPod customers.

Same with the iPhone- my wife loves hers and the 50 mostly useless apps
installed on it. A Droid could have twice the screen res, 5x the storage
and every "missing" feature of the iPhone, and my wife wouldn't be compelled
to switch- she's happily entrenched already, and has come to terms with its
limitations. Similarly, despite not grabbing much market or mindshare in
the US, Symbian has been the worldwide leader in smartphone sales for as
long as anyone can remember, and what was the last compelling Symbian phone?
The Nokia N95? Even with the slow erosion of their market share over the
last three years, and a pile of lackluster phones, they're still on top in
sales. The leaders crumble slowly, be they Verizon, Apple, or Nokia.

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4af1f543$0$1652$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>> The lead that Apple holds in smart phone hardware and applications
>> will be difficult to challenge. Already we're seeing that Verizon
>> decontented the hardware on the Droid, making it clear that they are
>> too dense to understand the attraction of the iPhone.
>
> In what way has Verizon "decontented" the Droid?

The U.S. version (meaning the Verizon version for now) has no multitouch
support.

"http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/11/motorola_explai.html;jsessionid=AMNYTUH5U01GZQE1GH OSKHWATMY32JVN"

> Not as long as they continue their "Its the Network" brainwashing
> campaign.

LOL, while it's less true than it was maybe five years ago, it's still
true that the Verizon network gives them a real advantage over competitors.

> AT&T would have to significantly leap frog Verizon in network
> size and quality to undo years of that.

Nah, just come pretty close to Verizon in coverage, speed, dropped
calls, etc. They don't have to be significantly better. However one
thing that's changed is that it's less likely that you'll be able to buy
a GSM/W-CDMA 3G smartphone that is as universal as the old quad-band GSM
phone was, thanks to the various bands being used for 3G in different
countries by different carriers.

> It's similar to the iPhone and
> iPod effect. Once you have the market share and reputation, it takes a
> long time to unseat that lead- say, for example, we accept the Zune HD
> is a better device than the iPod for example, (which, at least in some
> ways, it is.) A "little better" isn't good enough to win over the
> multi-generation iPod users with investments in iPod-specific expansion
> hardware, significant content purchases, etc. A ZuneHD would have to
> offer free content, make your bed, do the dishes, and convert to
> Roomba-mode and tidy up to steal entrenched iPod customers.

For both the iPhone and the iPod it has more to do with the
infrastructure that Apple and third party vendors have built up for the
device in terms of content, accessories, and applications. Without the
installed base of users, there is little incentive for content providers
to embrace Android. But it will probably come soon enough.

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4af2085f$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4af1f543$0$1652$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>
>>> The lead that Apple holds in smart phone hardware and applications will
>>> be difficult to challenge. Already we're seeing that Verizon decontented
>>> the hardware on the Droid, making it clear that they are too dense to
>>> understand the attraction of the iPhone.
>>
>> In what way has Verizon "decontented" the Droid?
>
> The U.S. version (meaning the Verizon version for now) has no multitouch
> support.
>
> "http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/11/motorola_explai.html;jsessionid=AMNYTUH5U01GZQE1GH OSKHWATMY32JVN"


How did you come to the conclusion that Verizon crippled it as opposed to
Motorola? Moto's response in that article was pretty vanilla. Verizon
historically crippled devices for profit motives, not just for spite. What
profit motive is there in disabling multi-touch?

My guess is it's a fear of the potential success of patent lawsuits brought
by Apple in the US (presumably high/not worth the risk) vs. Europe
(low/worth the risk.) That could just as easily be Moto's doing.

On Nov 4, 5:29*pm, Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <4af1f543$0$1652$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> I think that it is more likely that the iPhone will be available on Verizon
> before AT&T fixes its network. *I, for one, will be jumping to Verizon when
> they get the iPhone unless something I don't foresee happens before then,
> that would get me to change my mind.
>
What do you think of that 2 year Verizon contract with a $350 ETF?

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-95B0C5.15321704112009@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <4af1ff31$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > News wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, right. An AAPL-ologist a day keeps the real innovation away...
> >
> > Just reality. I'm no fanboi. I have no iPhone (AT&T coverage issues), no
> > Mac (I run several commercial programs that only run on Windows), no
> > iPod (well my daughter has one). The bashing of Jobs simply because of
> > the adoration of idiots like "David Moyer" is not logical.
>
> Keep in mind that to those like "News", "Larry", and the like who are
> obsessed with Jobs, anyone who has anything positive, or even neutral to
> say about Jobs or Apple is a "fanboi".

You forgot to say those two morons don't even have a microscopic clue about
anything they post ... EVERYTHING they post is utter garbage, lies, and
misinformation. Just killfile to two morons and ignore them.

Your Name wrote:
> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> news:michelle-95B0C5.15321704112009@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <4af1ff31$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> News wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, right. An AAPL-ologist a day keeps the real innovation away...
>>> Just reality. I'm no fanboi. I have no iPhone (AT&T coverage issues), no
>>> Mac (I run several commercial programs that only run on Windows), no
>>> iPod (well my daughter has one). The bashing of Jobs simply because of
>>> the adoration of idiots like "David Moyer" is not logical.
>> Keep in mind that to those like "News", "Larry", and the like who are
>> obsessed with Jobs, anyone who has anything positive, or even neutral to
>> say about Jobs or Apple is a "fanboi".
>
> You forgot to say those two morons don't even have a microscopic clue about
> anything they post ... EVERYTHING they post is utter garbage, lies, and
> misinformation. Just killfile to two morons and ignore them.
>
>
>


How's the KF performing, denialists?