Re: Hey Oxford - more reality

nospamatall <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote:

> I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
> numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
> bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
> past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.

yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
"moore's law" which governs the computer industry.

BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that so it's going
to be fun to watch as Apple takes over the cell market. They are just
ONE download away from releasing a VoIP product (iChat) on all existing
and future iPhones. Yes, steve is waiting for the right moment to kill
off the cell phone industry, we ALL know that... but his extreme
interest in FON spells everything out very clearly.

The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost /
High Quality products... something they've never had to experience. AT&T
is just a pawn at this point in the game.

> Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
> their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
> systems and nothing else.

Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
any value to the market place. Their technology is obsolete... The
public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.

> Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
> it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
> celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.

Well, it's as about as unlikely as a kid named Steve Wozniak invents a
powerful, extremely low cost computer and creates massive social change
on the order of the Light Bulb.

FON is quite similar if you think about it... a one time $40 cost to
share VoIP to 250 more people that ALSO have massive bandwidth "tied up"
since nobody knows it's possible to break the rules and win.

The FON concept is interesting and something can be done on a mass scale
if / when Apple plays their cards.

-

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-11-13, Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote:
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.

Moore's law concerns computer hardware. You can get the cellular
*hardware* for free or at low cost with a new contract or contract
extension. Then there's the cost of building out and maintaining the
network, billing, customer service, etc. Which is not to say that cell
contracts couldn't be cheaper, but $4 or $5 per month? I doubt it.

> BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...

Bahahahaha. That's funny. Do you understand the meaning of the term "price
fixing"?

> The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost

Bullshit. Apple products have always brought a premium price compared to
the rest of the market, from the first 128K Mac to today's iPhones.

> Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
> matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
> should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
> any value to the market place.

If that's the way you feel, don't pay for a cell phone.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Oxford wrote:
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.

Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
lower in cellular rates than you see now.

> Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).

And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.

> Their technology is obsolete... The
> public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.

No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.

In article <_8r_i.9427$ww2.1584@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> ,
DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Oxford wrote:
> > yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> > the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> > to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> > followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> > "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
>
> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
> lower in cellular rates than you see now.
>
> > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
>
> > Their technology is obsolete... The
> > public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
>
> No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.

Cell phones are now primarily funded by teens text messaging.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:

> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
> lower in cellular rates than you see now.

but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is skimming
off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per month
are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and shows how
uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy market, no
company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.

They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.

> > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.

Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
upgrading the towers.

> > Their technology is obsolete... The
> > public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
>
> No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.

No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.

The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
"major" expense after the towers are up.

The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
well run market.

Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

> > BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
> > keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that
>
> Yeah. Apple is known for their low prices, aren't they!

Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor. They charge a fair
price, then you use the product for 2-4 years and resell it for a
massive sum comparatively to PCs.

So if you understand the concept of "Value", Macs are the cheapest PCs
you can buy today.

Real Macs go for 30-40% more upon resell compared to Mac Clones.

Learn how markets work Bob, then you won't ask such silly questions.

Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesosx-706B5C.18441713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
>> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
>> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go
>> much lower in cellular rates than you see now.
>
> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
> front.
>

Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?

Damn, you're stupid.

"Oxford" <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-706B5C.18441713112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
> Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
> upgrading the towers.
>
> No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
> Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
> market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
> will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
> like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
> the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
>
> The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
> "major" expense after the towers are up.
>
> The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
> well run market.

The idiot Oxford is totally out of touch with reality. The MINIMUM
connection
to a site is a T1. Many use a DS3 or bigger. Have any idea what that costs?
Now, multiply by the hundreds of sites in an MSA. Then the metro fiber rings
to tie it all together. Have any idea what an OC3 or bigger costs?

I do....

This is just the network to connect to the switches. Then, there are leases
that can run
many thousands a month. Then there is the electricity. Then, there is the
connections to
the POTS. Then there is the many millions for the switches.... and on and
on....

The above is just to maintain an existing network and existing sites.

A new site nowadays costs a mil or more to build. Most all systems add some
every year.
Some, quite a few.

Now, just how ludicrous is "$5, $6 range a month for unlimited access"....

EVERY post of yours shows your complete lack of any actual knowledge.

At 13 Nov 2007 18:17:27 -0600 DTC wrote:

> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know
> how prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't
> seem to grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You
> can't go much lower in cellular rates than you see now.


Agreed. I will add the caviat, however, that cellphone companies have
lowered per-minute rates so much, that they've compensated by abolishing
their cheaper entry level plans, in order to keep ARPU up. Most
carriers START plans at $39 these days whereas a few years ago, $19
and/or $29 plans were readily available (but at a much higher per-minute
cost.)

Now, having said that, it really isn't a problem, since increased
competition in the prepaid arena has compensated for this. Losing access
to a 60 or 100 minutes for $19.99 plan isn't really a hardship when you
can get a $0.10/minute prepaid plan and pay $6-10 for those same minutes.


> > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry
> > goes POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.


Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks, and,
particularly in light of Oxford's continual regurgitation of the Gospel
According to Steve WRT 3G power consumption, WiFi eats batteries like
Homer Simspon goes through donuts. A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets (cellular
or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
hours on a single charge.

At 13 Nov 2007 18:44:17 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user.

I guess that depends on the level of service you want. A 1000 minute
plan with T-Mobile with unlimited EDGE data can be as low as $46. A 450-
minute iPhone plan with unlimited EDGE is $59. Heavy users get charged
more to ensure bandwidth isn't oversold, just like a broadband ISP
charges more for higher speeds. Both are methods of bandwidth allocation
based on retail price.

> So someone is skimming
> off the top.

I'll bet their margins are lower than Apple's!

> I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
> also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per
month
> are $2,400-8,000 a month.

And what does your Apple store pay for rent? What percentage of the new
Nano's price covers the incessant "1, 2, 3, 4" ads I have to endure? Why
after a boatload of free media hype and $200 in price drops do I have to
watch a bunch of lame actors show me they've just used their new iPhone
to do the same stuff I've done on phones for years? (A pilot checks the
weather! A couple accesses a wedding registry website! What did we all
do before the iPhone? Oh, that's right- we used all our other phones!)

> That is just plain WRONG and shows how
> uncompetitive the cell industry has become.

Um, just the opposite. In a competitive market advertising is perfectly
normal, AND cost effective, since it increases sales and profits in
excess of the advertising cost. Jiminy Christmas, Oxy, this is marketing
101 stuff.

> In a healthy market, no
> company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.


"1, 2, 3, 4, why then all the Apple stores?/ 5, 6, 7, 8, why advertise
products so great?"


> They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
> of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.

So I see pricing strategy and marketing get added to the things you
have no real understanding of.


> Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
> upgrading the towers.

Nature abhors a vaccum, my dear Oxford. If cell carriers could offer
lower price
points profitably, they would, because it would increase market share and
cripple less efficient competitors. Look at Metro PCS and Leap- they
offer unlimited plans at the $50 or lower price point. They do this by
offering service with poor coverage (compared to the national carriers.)
Fewer towers, less capacity, lower costs equal lower prices. See the
pattern?

In fact, the marketing strategy of cell operators today is "kill 'em with
add-ons." Competition in voice plans is so fierce and so low margin,
texting, data, ringtones, etc. are used to increase, or even to attain,
profits.


> No, I'm very good with numbers

The same guy who confused $0.04 and 0.04 cents? Who believed 1 out of
every 100 people in the UK bought an iPhone in three days? You're good
with numbers, alright- give or take a few zeros in either direction...

> and spotting faults within a market. The
> Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to
> normal market behavior.

It's actually quite typical of an infrastructure-intensive service market-
where the cost of infrastructure is high compared to other costs and has
to be spread out among all users, regardless of their usage. The
carrier's actual "per minute" cost isn't fixed, like the price of a can
of soda at a grocery store is. Infrastructure will cost $x
regardless if it's used to 1/8th capacity or 7/8ths.

Usage is controlled by charging more for higher usage, to prevent the
capacity issues the flat-rate carriers like Leap or Metro face.

> It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
> will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
> like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
> the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.


I'll grant you that's an interesting concept, but probably unworkable
from a practical perspective- for starters, you'd have to get various
competitors to agree. Even VoIP has very little inter-company
cooperation- Skype users can't call MagicJack, Vonage or Packet8 users
for free, so why would, say, Verizon agree to let AT&T customers access
their network free of interconnect charges?

Besides, most monthly cell plans include free in-network calling, plus
many cell companies already offer low-cost prepaid plans with free in-
network calling. Verizon and AT&T offer unlimited in-net calling for
$1/day, charged only on the days you actually use the phone.

Your "$5-6" number is way too low, BTW- a few years ago Sprint estimated
their
per-customer infrastructure costs- just customer service, billing and
network, ran around $18. This led to the decision to eliminate a tier or
two of low-usage plans, which at the time started at $15, and migrate
them to prepaid which eliminates billing and some customer service costs.

Again, you're trying to compare VoIP- a parasitic service that gets a
free ride on the network of an ISP, to a wireless service who brings
their own to the table. They aren't directly comparable.

> The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
> "major" expense after the towers are up.

Wow. It's always hard to figure out if you're yanking our chains, or
just that mind-bogglingly naive. What about maintenance, expansion,
upgrades to capacity and bandwidth, handset subsidies, customer service
expenses? What about interconnect charges to the PSTN- their largest
telecommuncation expense next to infrastructure.

> The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
> well run market.

"1, 2, 3, 4, explain Apple's ads a little more/ 5, 6, 7, 8, I suspect
you'll make me wait..."


Cellular is a very customer service intesive business. Customers want
questions answered by real people, and want to touch and play with
product before they buy. Both require employed bodies.

As to advertising, you already know that answer- that Feist tune plays in
your head as you dream about what Steve Jobs' warm embrace would feel
like...

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

> > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
> > skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
> > companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
> > rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
> > shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
> > market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
> > front.
>
> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?

yes, and I fully agree.

but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
90,000 or more. Why?

That is the question...

In news:colalovesosx-E75295.21245513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> typed:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>>> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
>>> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
>>> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
>>> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
>>> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
>>> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
>>> front.
>>
>> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
>
> yes, and I fully agree.
>
> but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> 90,000 or more. Why?
>
> That is the question...

Perhaps they sell that much more. lol

Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.

http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fif...nue/index.html

Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:colalovesosx-
E75295.21245513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
>> > skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
>> > companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
>> > rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
>> > shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
>> > market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
>> > front.
>>
>> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
>
> yes, and I fully agree.
>
> but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> 90,000 or more. Why?

They do more business. I would have thought that to be obvious. But of
course you are never acquainted with the obvious.

>
> That is the question...

No- the question is how can somebody as clueless as you actually survive?

At 13 Nov 2007 21:24:55 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> 90,000 or more. Why?
>
> That is the question...


Different distribution methodsfor different companies. Nokia operates 3
stores in the US- big, upscale "boutiques" designed to raise brand
awareness, rather than to actually make a profit- basically they're a
brick and mortar version of advertising.

Cellular carriers, on the other hand, sell convenience- a large number of
relatively cheap stores are designed to offer convenient points of
contact for customer service and sales.

In article <xVu_i.7149$LZ7.112@newsfe15.lga>,
"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> In news:colalovesosx-E75295.21245513112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> typed:
> > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
> >
> >>> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
> >>> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
> >>> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
> >>> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
> >>> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
> >>> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
> >>> front.
> >>
> >> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
> >
> > yes, and I fully agree.
> >
> > but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> > 90,000 or more. Why?
> >
> > That is the question...
>
> Perhaps they sell that much more. lol
>
> Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
> dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
> was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
> history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
>
> http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fif...nue/index.html

Actually, it opened May of last year.
FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
it out of his own pocket? True story.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:

> > Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the
> > most
> > dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The
> > Cube
> > was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for
> > a
> > history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
> >
> > http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fif...nue/index.html
>
> Actually, it opened May of last year.
> FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
> it out of his own pocket? True story.

yes, and part of the stipulation is he gets to keep it if he ever leaves
apple. kinda funny.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
> than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks,

the iPhone auto connects, so it's not a problem. Sounds like you use
windows. On a mac or iphone you either auto connect or select the
network without a lock with your mouse or finger. one click or one touch
is the most you have to do on apple products to join a wifi network.
then it remembers it forever from there on out.

> and,
> particularly in light of Oxford's continual regurgitation of the Gospel
> According to Steve WRT 3G power consumption, WiFi eats batteries like
> Homer Simspon goes through donuts. A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
> between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets (cellular
> or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
> hours on a single charge.

incorrect. wifi on the iphone barely touches the battery, you can go a
full week with wifi on the entire time, you obviously haven't used an
iphone... and uses wifi for it's main data connection type.

-

Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

> > Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor.
>
> No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the $500
> Mac tower?

those aren't categories that Apple has products in, sorry Bob.

please stay on track, thanks.

At 15 Nov 2007 22:00:18 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> > Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
> > than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks,
>
> the iPhone auto connects, so it's not a problem. Sounds like you use
> windows. On a mac or iphone you either auto connect or select the
> network without a lock with your mouse or finger.

All modern wifi devices autoconnect. Which is fine for webrowsing, e-
mail or file transfers- the systems pauses a few seconds and reconnects-
no big deal. But as you well know, that's curtains for VoIP- the call
terminates everytime you change APs.

> the one click or one touch
> is the most you have to do on apple products to join a wifi network.

And then redial. Great cellular replacement you've discovered there,
Skippy.

> then it reme.bers it forever from there on out.

Just like a Windows machine, a Wi-Fi phone or any other Wi-fi device. We
all know how Wi-Fi works, Oxy. (BTW, if your Mac is so advanced, why do
you need to use Coconut WiFi? Doesn't your Mac automatically tell you if
a wireless network is available and if it's secure or open? Sounds like
you need to install Windows on your Macbook! ;-)

> > A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
> > between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets
(cellular
> > or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
> > hours on a single charge.
>
> incorrect. wifi on the iphone barely touches the battery, you can go a
> full week with wifi on the entire time, you obviously haven't used an
> iphone...

Certainly not for a week, I haven't. And if you think it can stay
powered up with WiFi on for 7 days, I'm not so sure you've actually used
one either.

The kind folks at wirelessinfo.com have, however, and while they
certainly praised the iPhone for it's long battery life, they tested it
at about 6-1/2 hours of web-browsing with wi-fi on before the battery
crapped out, which equalled or exceeded most other smartphones they tested,

but it by no means lasted "a week" when on and connected to a network in
their tests.

Oxford <colalovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:colalovesosx-
82E1AF.00110316112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>
>> > Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor.
>>
>> No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the $500
>> Mac tower?
>
> those aren't categories that Apple has products in, sorry Bob.
>
> please stay on track, thanks.
>

They don't have laptops?

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

> >> > Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor.
> >>
> >> No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the $500
> >> Mac tower?
> >
> > those aren't categories that Apple has products in, sorry Bob.
> >
> > please stay on track, thanks.
>
> They don't have laptops?

not in the low function, sub $999 price point.

Bob got confused on the technical details before he posted.

-

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-3B68FF.19010916112007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> >> > Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor.
>> >>
>> >> No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the
>> >> $500 Mac tower?
>> >
>> > those aren't categories that Apple has products in, sorry Bob.
>> >
>> > please stay on track, thanks.
>>
>> They don't have laptops?
>
> not in the low function, sub $999 price point.
>
> Bob got confused on the technical details before he posted.
>
> -
>

No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700 laptops do
more than an Apple.

And you said, "Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor." Now you
say they don't. You lied again, newbie.

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

> No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700 laptops do
> more than an Apple.

Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.

http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

In the box

* MacBook
* Apple Remote
* 60W MagSafe Power Adapter, AC wall plug, and power cord
* Lithium-polymer battery
* Install/restore DVDs
* Printed and electronic documentation

Intel core 2 Duo

Processor and memory

* 2.0GHz or 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
* 4MB shared L2 cache running at full processor speed
* 800MHz frontside bus
* 1GB (two 512MB SO-DIMMs) of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300); two
SO-DIMM slots support up to 4GB

Storage

* 80GB, 120GB, or 160GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard disk drive;
optional 120GB, 160GB, or 250GB 5400-rpm drive1
* One of the following optical drives:
o 24x slot-loading Combo drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
+ Reads DVDs at up to 8x speed
+ Writes CD-R discs at up to 24x speed
+ Writes CD-RW discs at up to 16x speed
+ Reads CDs at up to 24x speed
o 8x slot-loading SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
+ Maximum write: 8x DVD-R, DVD+R; 4x DVD-R DL (double
layer), DVD+R DL (double layer), DVD-RW, DVD+RW; 24x CD-R; 10x CD-RW
+ Maximum read: 8x DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-ROM; 6x DVD-ROM
(double layer DVD-9), DVD-R DL (double layer), DVD+R DL (double layer),
DVD-RW, and DVD+RW; 24x CD

MagSafe power adapter coiled

Battery and power

* 55-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery (with integrated charge
indicator LEDs) providing up to 6 hours of battery life2
* 60W MagSafe Power Adapter with cable management system
* MagSafe power adapter port

Display

* 13.3-inch (diagonal) glossy widescreen TFT display with support
for millions of colors
* Supported resolutions: 1280 by 800 (native), 1152 by 720, 1024 by
768, 1024 by 640, 800 by 600, 800 by 500, 720 by 480, and 640 by 480
pixels at 16:10 aspect ratio; 1024 by 768, 800 by 600, and 640 by 480
pixels at 4:3 aspect ratio; 720 by 480 pixels at 3:2 aspect ratio

Graphics and video support

* Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor with 144MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared
with main memory3
* Extended desktop and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full
native resolution on the built-in display and up to 1920 by 1200 pixels
on an external display, both at millions of colors
* iSightBuilt-in iSight camera
* Mini-DVI port
* DVI output using mini-DVI to DVI adapter (sold separately)
* VGA output using mini-DVI to VGA adapter (sold separately)
* Composite and S-video output using mini-DVI to video adapter (sold
separately)

Communications
USB Modem

* Built-in 10/100/1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet (RJ-45 connector)
* Built-in AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi (based on IEEE 802.11n draft
specification)4
* Built-in Bluetooth 2.0 + Enhanced Data Rate (EDR)
* Optional external Apple USB Modem

Audio

* Built-in stereo speakers
* Built-in omnidirectional microphone
* Combined optical digital audio input/audio line in (minijack)
* Combined optical digital audio output/headphone out (minijack)

Peripheral connections

* One FireWire 400 port (up to 400 Mbps)
* Two USB 2.0 ports (up to 480 Mbps)

EnergyStar Electrical and environmental requirements

* Meets ENERGY STAR requirements
* Line voltage: 100-240V AC
* Frequency: 50Hz to 60Hz
* Operating temperature: 50° to 95° F (10° to 35° C)
* Storage temperature: -13° to 113° F (-24° to 45° C)
* Relative humidity: 0% to 90% noncondensing
* Maximum operating altitude: 10,000 feet
* Maximum storage altitude: 15,000 feet
* Maximum shipping altitude: 35,000 feet

Size and weight

* Height: 1.08 inches (2.75 cm)
* Width: 12.78 inches (32.5 cm)
* Depth: 8.92 inches (22.7 cm)
* Weight: 5.0 pounds (2.27 kg)

Software

* Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard (includes Time Machine, Quick Look, Spaces,
Spotlight, Dashboard, Mail, iChat, Safari, Address Book, QuickTime,
iCal, DVD Player, Photo Booth, Front Row, Xcode Developer Tools)
* iLife ¹08 (includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb,
GarageBand), Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Test Drive, iWork ¹08 (30-day
trial)

Input

* Built-in full-size keyboard with 78 (U.S.) or 79 (ISO) keys,
including 12 function keys, and 4 arrow keys (inverted "T" arrangement)
* Solid-state scrolling trackpad for precise cursor control;
supports two-finger scrolling, tap, double-tap, and drag capabilities
* Apple Remote

Security

* Kensington cable lock slot

Full Retail - $1,099

http://www.apple.com/macbook/macbook.html

Current price $1025, no tax, free shipping

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-A4028C.23070516112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700 laptops
>> do more than an Apple.
>
> Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
>
>

I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.

CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

> > Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
> >
> >
>
> I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.

no they didn't, even on the high-end most pc laptops don't have built in
cameras, so by default you are lying.

post a link if you want to win the bet. no link, i win!

"CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
Xns99EB504CFA479isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:53 AM:

> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
> news:linuxlovesosx-A4028C.23070516112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>
>>> No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700 laptops
>>> do more than an Apple.
>>
>> Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
>>
>>
>
> I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.

Damn, Oxford, once he posts those links you sure are going to have egg on
your face!

Oh.

Never mind.


--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.

Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in news:C36459FB.99C0B%
CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com:

> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
> Xns99EB504CFA479isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:53 AM:
>
>> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
>> news:linuxlovesosx-A4028C.23070516112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>>
>>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700 laptops
>>>> do more than an Apple.
>>>
>>> Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.
>
> Damn, Oxford, once he posts those links you sure are going to have egg on
> your face!
>
> Oh.
>
> Never mind.
>
>

Gee, Snot- you seem awfulk sure of yourself. You might want to research a
little more before stepping into it like that.

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
FAC583.08171217112007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> > Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.
>
> no they didn't, even on the high-end most pc laptops don't have built in
> cameras, so by default you are lying.

Ah- but I only need one in the $700 range, don't I?


>
> post a link if you want to win the bet. no link, i win!

I don't need a link- as an expert in the field, my word is the only thing
required (sound familiar?).

"CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
Xns99EB7375A9473isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 11:21 AM:

> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in news:C36459FB.99C0B%
> CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com:
>
>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>> Xns99EB504CFA479isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:53 AM:
>>
>>> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
>>> news:linuxlovesosx-A4028C.23070516112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>>>
>>>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700 laptops
>>>>> do more than an Apple.
>>>>
>>>> Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.
>>
>> Damn, Oxford, once he posts those links you sure are going to have egg on
>> your face!
>>
>> Oh.
>>
>> Never mind.
>>
>>
>
> Gee, Snot- you seem awfulk sure of yourself. You might want to research a
> little more before stepping into it like that.

Hey! You forgot the links! LOL!


--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
news:C364899D.99C68%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com:

> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
> Xns99EB7375A9473isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 11:21 AM:
>
>> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in news:C36459FB.99C0B%
>> CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com:
>>
>>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>>> Xns99EB504CFA479isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 11/17/07 7:53 AM:
>>>
>>>> Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in
>>>> news:linuxlovesosx-A4028C.23070516112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No he didn't, and I'd be willing to bet that a number of $700
>>>>>> laptops do more than an Apple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bet... go find a $700 laptop that has more features than this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I win- every one I looked at had all of those features and more.
>>>
>>> Damn, Oxford, once he posts those links you sure are going to have
>>> egg on your face!
>>>
>>> Oh.
>>>
>>> Never mind.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gee, Snot- you seem awfulk sure of yourself. You might want to
>> research a little more before stepping into it like that.
>
> Hey! You forgot the links! LOL!
>
>

I posted it and strangely enough, you didn't respond to that one, Snot.
How interesting.