Snow Leopard & iPhone 3.0 - BIG NEWS !!!

Way too much information to list... but below is the best link from
bottom to top of all the big changes to the computing and phone worlds
that are coming up.

The full video will appear later today, but if you want to catch up on
today's events... go here... (again, scroll to the bottom and work UP)

EXCELLENT --->

http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/08/p...ve-from-wwdc-2
009/

Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Oxford
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:


> W

Way too much information to list... but below is the best Linux
info on converting EEE from crap OSen to 3D translucent
Linux desktop that is faster than any mac retard has had the
chance to miss...


> EXCELLENT --->


Ubuntu 9.04 Dumbfoundationalism Experiences
-------------------------------------------

I just don't believe it!

I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on an Asus EEE.

It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
to finishing installation, booting up
AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT AN ACHIEVEMENT FOR THE UBUNTU TEAM!!!!!
HIP HIP HOORAY!
HIP HIP HOORAY!!
HIP HIP HOORAY!!!

I am totally dumb founded!!

Ubuntu 9.04 is technically just astonishing!!

Nothing as powerful exists for the PC in the whole world.
And nothing as powerful as this has existed in the PC's entire history!!!

2Gb of software installed including open office, networking,
browser, user management, gimp, email, music/movie player,
DVD burner, synaptic, rsync, etc. etc.. etc..

To make matters 'worse', I didn't even install to the internal
disks, I installed to a 2.5" 40Gb external pocket drive
running off of a USB port!!!

Since I didn't believe the install time, I thought I must have
made a mistake with the mental note of time.
So I installed again!
And its 17 minutes again from pressing the install button to booting
up the new install and opening up firefox and then typing
google and getting first page up!!!

Since the EEE 1000 hasn't got an optical drive, I installed with
from the SD Card formatted to EXT2 (Micoshaft FAT format is a disaster
for an SD Card and won't work at these speeds)

Here below some pointers to how it all got done...



Using extlinux to convert a liveCD iso to bootable SD card
-------------------------------------------------------------

Converting an ISO file to a bootable USB stick or a bootable
SD Card for EEE is easy.

Without being able to convert a distro into a bootable USB flash /SD Card,
that distro can't be easily loaded into netbook like EEE
and stand to miss out on users installing it into netbooks.

So I would recommend all distro mainters look at their netbook
boot strategy and offer something to boot their distros
from USB flash and SD cards or miss out on users installing it into
netbooks.

Having done a few conversions, a pattern emerges that works well for
most syslinux / isolinux / extlinux based distros.

1. Put your SD card or USB flash drive into your desktop Linux PC and
***then*open*a*console*and*type*dmesg
***You*should*see*some*line*indicating*your*flash* drive*as
***being*picked*up*and*allocated*with*a*comment*li ke*sdc*/*sdc1*etc..
***Remember*both*names*-*the*first*is*/dev/sdc*which*is*your
***device*name,*and*the*second*is*/dev/sdc1*which*is*your*partition*name.
***(Don't*get*confused*between*drive*/dev/sdc*and*partition*/dev/sdc1
***or*your*drive*could*become*scrambled*eggs*later *on.*Also*remember
***it*may*be*called*sdg*or*sdh*etc*depending*what* you*see*when*you
***plug*in*device*and*type*dmesg)

2. Install gparted on your machine using synaptic.
***To*run*it*you*can*type
*****sudo*gparted
***in*a*console*window*and*select*on*the*right*sid e*the*drive*name*allocated
***in*step*1.*Right*click*on*the*bar*that*represen ts*the*partition
***and*click*on*manage*flags.
***Enable*the*boot*flag*and*click*OK.*This*makes*t he*SD*Card*/*USB
***stick*bootable.

3. Format the partition /dev/sdc1 to ext2 linux format.
***This*format*is*not*directly*readable*under*WIND UMMY*Osen,*but*there
***are*free*drivers*for*it*-*try*for*example*www.fs-driver.org
***The*ext2*format*is*many*times*faster*than*windu mmy*FAT*so
***ditching*WINDUMMY*file*formats*is*advised.

4. Identify that you have syslinux or isolinux in your liveCD by
***opening*the*.ISO*file*in*archive*manager*and*ch ecking*that*it*has
***isolinux*or*syslinux*directory*somewhere*in*the *liveCD.
***In*ubuntu,*the*root*directory*of*/dev/sdc1*will*not*be*writeable
***unless*you*are*in*super*user*mode.
***You*can*run
********sudo*file-roller
***to*open*iso*files*like*xubuntu-9.04-desktop-i386.iso*in*super*user
***mode*and*extract*all*the*files*in*the*iso*file
***to*the*/dev/sdc1*partition.

5. Go to the flash drive and locate the syslinux (or isolinux) directory.
***rename it to extlinux. Inside the now renamed extlinux directory will
***a*file*such*as*syslinux.cfg*or*isolinux.cfg.*Re name*that*to
***extlinux.conf
***
6. Get syslinux - this is a boot loader and menu system for FAT based
***file*systems.*Download*the*latest*version*from* here...
***http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/
***Unzip*it*and*go*to*the*extlinux*directory.
***On*my*machine*path*is*something*like*this....../syslinux/extlinux
***Run*the*program*there*by*typing*this*-*(note*this*command*is*updating
***the*partition*/dev/sdc1)

***./extlinux*--install*/dev/sdc1/extlinux*

***This*puts*a*new*file*into*your*SD*card*/*USB*flash*disk

7. from the extlinux directory change to the mbr directory
***cd*../mbr
***and*then*run*this*-*again*note*this*time*its*updating*the*device*by
***writing*data*to*the*first*sector*as*opposed*to* the*first*partition.

***sudo*cat*mbr.bin*>*/dev/sdc

***(Note*at*this*stage*you*may*need*to*do*some*of* the*sudo*commands*after
***entering*super*user*mode*to*make*it*work*proper ly.
***So*the*above*command*would*have*been*done*as*fo llows*in*Ubuntu.

***sudo*-s
***cat*mbr.bin*>*/dev/sdc
***)

***This*makes*the*card*bootable*and*useable*in*an* Asus*EEE*and*many*other
***PCs*with*SD*card*or*USB*flash*disk*boot*facilit y.


This method tested and works for

1. Ubuntu
2. Slax
3. Knoppix
4. Puppy
5. DSL
6. GParted
7. gOS
8. Dynabolic
9. MoonOS Kachana
10. Xubuntu
11. TinyOS (incredible distro!)


(Note the method does not work for .ISO files built with grub bootloader -
*need*a*different*install*method*with*grub*boot*lo ader*instead*of*syslinux.)

Try installing something powerful like Ubuntu on to a netbook
and see it take netbooks to new heights.


3D Translucent Cube Desktop
---------------------------

The latest EEE1000 has fast enough graphics for translucent
3D desktops. An easy way to do all this with Ubuntu is:

Install Ubuntu on EEE (compiz itself
appears to be installed by default in the default install),
then install compiz settings manager using Synaptic
which allows compiz to be fully 'exercised'.
And then do the following to get the 3D cube desktop
working...

*Go*to*General*>*Display*Settings*>*Lighting*and*t urned*it*off
*Enable*Desktop*Cube*and*then*Desktop*Cube*>*Trans parent*Cube*and*set*the
*two*opacity**settings*to*30%
*then*Desktop*Cube*>*Skydome*and*check*the*skydome *check*mark
*Enable*Rotate*Cube
*Enable*Enhanced*Zoom*Desktop
*Right*click*the*virtual*workspaces*panel*and*incr ease*the*number
*of*colums*to*8.

And hey presto - 100% 3D translucent desktop with 8 screens!!!!!!!!!!

*[Some*shortcuts*for*the*3D screen
**ctrl*+*alt*+*left*or*right*arrow*to*spin*cube
**ctrl*+*alt*+*down*arrow*and*then*left*or*right*a rrow*for*a*ring*switcher
**super*+*E*for*yet*another*switcher
**super*+*mouse*wheel*scroll*to*zoom*in*and*out*of *the*3D*desktop.
*]

Reducing Font Sizes And Turning ON Sub Pixel Rendering
------------------------------------------------------

The EEE can be astonishingly good to look at once the
font size is reduced to about 8 and sub pixel rendering
is turned ON. It is still absolutely
readable and everything appeared like a 'full screen' miniature
desktop equivalent of a big desktop PC.
System > Appearance > Fonts get to the font settings
in Ubuntu. On software like firefox and some other applications,
need to also to set local use of fonts ( Edit > Preferences > Content
will have font settings for firefox that also need to be changed).


VirtualBox
----------
Yes! VirtualBox can run on Ubutu set up with 3D translucent desktop.
http://www.virtualbox.org

Install virtual box and then install programs like windopws XP and run
it pretty much at it would run on a normal netbook. Its hard to tell
if the netbook is running Linux or the WINDUMMY OSen when the software
is run full screen becaue the speed and responsiveness is about
the same between a real windummy OSen install and a virtual box
virtual machine running it all in Linux.


http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.co

Yawn.

$100 price reductions for the next Mac OS X, 8GB, and 16GB iPhone, and a
new 32GB model at $299. No MMS until the end of the summer, and no
tethering. A few new applications (nothing that isn't on other phones)
and now you can download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.

They're losing their way fast without the Great Leader Chairman Jobs.

Meanwhile, Verizon (finally!) issued firmware update .148 for the
BlackBerry Storm on Sunday, replacing .75 which was infuriatingly buggy
and clanky. It's still no iPhone killer, but at least it's no longer an
embarassment.

-- 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.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:06:39 -0400, Mark Crispin wrote:
> and no tethering.

You realize that's an AT&T issue, don't you? Other carriers allow it.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:17:23 -0400, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:06:39 -0400, Mark Crispin wrote:
>> and no tethering.
>
>You realize that's an AT&T issue, don't you? Other carriers allow it.


iPhone 3.0 OS allows Tethering, and it is available in other
countriues. Yes its an ATT issue.

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@panda.com> wrote in message
news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0906081643030.195@hsinghsing. panda.com...
> Yawn.
>
> $100 price reductions for the next Mac OS X, 8GB, and 16GB iPhone, and a
> new 32GB model at $299.

The biggest news IMO is the $100 reduction in the 8GB iPhone. It puts the
cost of the iPhone at under $100 which is a big psychological barrier. In
the grand scheme of things with the AT&T contract the $100 reduction isn't
that big of a deal but psychologically being able to get a unit for $99 is
going to attract a lot of buyers.


> No MMS until the end of the summer, and no tethering. A few new
> applications (nothing that isn't on other phones) and now you can
> download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.

To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability except that
the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet. Ultimately it's the same thing
for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
ready... AT&T is not.


> They're losing their way fast without the Great Leader Chairman Jobs.

Ultimately Apple is a business and I think that at $99/iPhone they will
make a good deal of money on it. They get a chunk (+/- 30%) of revenue from
the Apple store and they also get money from AT&T from the service
contract. They'll make a little less money on the hardware (the razor) but
they should easily make up for it in software and services (the blades.)

Jobs... I hope he gets well. I was never a big fan of his but I respect the
contributions he's made to the industry.


> Meanwhile, Verizon (finally!) issued firmware update .148 for the
> BlackBerry Storm on Sunday, replacing .75 which was infuriatingly buggy
> and clanky. It's still no iPhone killer, but at least it's no longer an
> embarassment.

In article <4gbr259u4fombhhaj34oeonve90bki4f7e@4ax.com>,
Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:17:23 -0400, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:06:39 -0400, Mark Crispin wrote:
> >> and no tethering.
> >
> >You realize that's an AT&T issue, don't you? Other carriers allow it.
>
>
> iPhone 3.0 OS allows Tethering, and it is available in other
> countriues. Yes its an ATT issue.

Although macrumors.com says AT&T will eventually offer tethering, but
possibly only as part of a $70/year data plan.

Someone really needs to do something about the US cellular industry.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <h0ke3i$mtv$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ezekiel" <there@nothere.com> wrote:

> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@panda.com> wrote in message
> news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0906081643030.195@hsinghsing. panda.com...
> > Yawn.
> >
> > $100 price reductions for the next Mac OS X, 8GB, and 16GB iPhone,
> > and a new 32GB model at $299.
>
> The biggest news IMO is the $100 reduction in the 8GB iPhone. It puts
> the cost of the iPhone at under $100 which is a big psychological
> barrier. In the grand scheme of things with the AT&T contract the
> $100 reduction isn't that big of a deal but psychologically being
> able to get a unit for $99 is going to attract a lot of buyers.
>
>
> > No MMS until the end of the summer, and no tethering. A few new
> > applications (nothing that isn't on other phones) and now you can
> > download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.
>
> To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability
> except that the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet. Ultimately
> it's the same thing for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds
> like the iPhone is ready... AT&T is not.
>
>
> > They're losing their way fast without the Great Leader Chairman
> > Jobs.
>
> Ultimately Apple is a business and I think that at $99/iPhone they
> will make a good deal of money on it. They get a chunk (+/- 30%) of
> revenue from the Apple store and they also get money from AT&T from
> the service contract. They'll make a little less money on the
> hardware (the razor) but they should easily make up for it in
> software and services (the blades.)

Supposedly Apple no longer gets a share of contract revenue from AT&T,
but the unsubsidized price of that $99 iPhone is $299. So they're
presumably getting an extra $200 from AT&T for every one purchased. I
wonder what it costs to make. They're probably doing pretty well, but
not quite making out like bandits.

(They do that on the 32 GB model, where they get to charge an extra $100
for a memory chip that probably costs them $20.)

[snip]

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

ZnU wrote:
> In article <4gbr259u4fombhhaj34oeonve90bki4f7e@4ax.com>,
> Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:17:23 -0400, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:06:39 -0400, Mark Crispin wrote:
>>>> and no tethering.
>>> You realize that's an AT&T issue, don't you? Other carriers allow it.
>>
>> iPhone 3.0 OS allows Tethering, and it is available in other
>> countriues. Yes its an ATT issue.
>
> Although macrumors.com says AT&T will eventually offer tethering, but
> possibly only as part of a $70/year data plan.
>
> Someone really needs to do something about the US cellular industry.
>

Really? Then step up and do it! If you hold your breath waiting for
"somebody" you're going to turn very blue!

"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-2C7726.21411808062009@Port80.Individual.NET...
> In article <h0ke3i$mtv$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Ezekiel" <there@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@panda.com> wrote in message
>> news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0906081643030.195@hsinghsing. panda.com...
>> > Yawn.
>> >
>> > $100 price reductions for the next Mac OS X, 8GB, and 16GB iPhone,
>> > and a new 32GB model at $299.
>>
>> The biggest news IMO is the $100 reduction in the 8GB iPhone. It puts
>> the cost of the iPhone at under $100 which is a big psychological
>> barrier. In the grand scheme of things with the AT&T contract the
>> $100 reduction isn't that big of a deal but psychologically being
>> able to get a unit for $99 is going to attract a lot of buyers.
>>
>>
>> > No MMS until the end of the summer, and no tethering. A few new
>> > applications (nothing that isn't on other phones) and now you can
>> > download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.
>>
>> To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability
>> except that the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet. Ultimately
>> it's the same thing for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds
>> like the iPhone is ready... AT&T is not.
>>
>>
>> > They're losing their way fast without the Great Leader Chairman
>> > Jobs.
>>
>> Ultimately Apple is a business and I think that at $99/iPhone they
>> will make a good deal of money on it. They get a chunk (+/- 30%) of
>> revenue from the Apple store and they also get money from AT&T from
>> the service contract. They'll make a little less money on the
>> hardware (the razor) but they should easily make up for it in
>> software and services (the blades.)
>
> Supposedly Apple no longer gets a share of contract revenue from AT&T,
> but the unsubsidized price of that $99 iPhone is $299. So they're
> presumably getting an extra $200 from AT&T for every one purchased. I
> wonder what it costs to make. They're probably doing pretty well, but
> not quite making out like bandits.

I did hear about (but forgot) about the revenue sharing that was terminated
a while back. It's not clear whether this was just with AT&T or with other
carriers around the world. I checked the definitive source which is the
10-Q financial statement that Apple files with the SEC each quarter but it
wasn't clear.

(Page 30)
iPhone revenue includes the portion of handset revenue recognized in
accordance with subscription accounting over the product's 24-month
estimated economic life,

(Page 35)
The Company's cash generated by operating activities significantly exceeded
its net income due primarily to the increase in deferred revenue, net of
deferred costs, associated with subscription accounting for iPhone.


** Part of it could be residual payments still coming in from AT&T from
before the revenue sharing was cancelled.



> (They do that on the 32 GB model, where they get to charge an extra $100
> for a memory chip that probably costs them $20.)

The extra memory becomes a huge profit maker. Many other phones have a
micro-SD card (man those are small) that you can use to expand your storage
but unfortunately the iPhone doesn't.

In article <h0kfv6$2kj$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ezekiel" <there@nothere.com> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-2C7726.21411808062009@Port80.Individual.NET...
> > In article <h0ke3i$mtv$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Ezekiel" <there@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@panda.com> wrote in message
> >> news:alpine.OSX.2.00.0906081643030.195@hsinghsing. panda.com...
> >> > Yawn.
> >> >
> >> > $100 price reductions for the next Mac OS X, 8GB, and 16GB iPhone,
> >> > and a new 32GB model at $299.
> >>
> >> The biggest news IMO is the $100 reduction in the 8GB iPhone. It puts
> >> the cost of the iPhone at under $100 which is a big psychological
> >> barrier. In the grand scheme of things with the AT&T contract the
> >> $100 reduction isn't that big of a deal but psychologically being
> >> able to get a unit for $99 is going to attract a lot of buyers.
> >>
> >>
> >> > No MMS until the end of the summer, and no tethering. A few new
> >> > applications (nothing that isn't on other phones) and now you can
> >> > download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.
> >>
> >> To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability
> >> except that the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet. Ultimately
> >> it's the same thing for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds
> >> like the iPhone is ready... AT&T is not.
> >>
> >>
> >> > They're losing their way fast without the Great Leader Chairman
> >> > Jobs.
> >>
> >> Ultimately Apple is a business and I think that at $99/iPhone they
> >> will make a good deal of money on it. They get a chunk (+/- 30%) of
> >> revenue from the Apple store and they also get money from AT&T from
> >> the service contract. They'll make a little less money on the
> >> hardware (the razor) but they should easily make up for it in
> >> software and services (the blades.)
> >
> > Supposedly Apple no longer gets a share of contract revenue from AT&T,
> > but the unsubsidized price of that $99 iPhone is $299. So they're
> > presumably getting an extra $200 from AT&T for every one purchased. I
> > wonder what it costs to make. They're probably doing pretty well, but
> > not quite making out like bandits.
>
> I did hear about (but forgot) about the revenue sharing that was terminated
> a while back. It's not clear whether this was just with AT&T or with other
> carriers around the world. I checked the definitive source which is the
> 10-Q financial statement that Apple files with the SEC each quarter but it
> wasn't clear.
>
> (Page 30)
> iPhone revenue includes the portion of handset revenue recognized in
> accordance with subscription accounting over the product's 24-month
> estimated economic life,
>
> (Page 35)
> The Company's cash generated by operating activities significantly exceeded
> its net income due primarily to the increase in deferred revenue, net of
> deferred costs, associated with subscription accounting for iPhone.
>
>
> ** Part of it could be residual payments still coming in from AT&T from
> before the revenue sharing was cancelled.

I think this is just Apple's rather kooky interpretation of accounting
rules, according to which they have to use subscription-based accounting
if they're planning to offer substantial free upgrades for products
after shipping them. (Which is why they charge iPod Touch users for
upgrades they give to iPhone users for free -- they don't use the
subscription accounting for the Touch.)

No other tech company seems to interpret accounting rules that way, so I
suspect the whole might just be a ploy to spread out revenue to make it
harder for competitors to figure out how well specific Apple products
are doing. Apple is notoriously paranoid about this sort of thing.

> > (They do that on the 32 GB model, where they get to charge an extra
> > $100 for a memory chip that probably costs them $20.)
>
> The extra memory becomes a huge profit maker. Many other phones have
> a micro-SD card (man those are small) that you can use to expand your
> storage but unfortunately the iPhone doesn't.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <h0ke3i$mtv$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ezekiel" <there@nothere.com> wrote:
> To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability except that
> the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet. Ultimately it's the same thing
> for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> ready... AT&T is not.

More precisely, for the end-user who is in the US and is using their
iPhone on AT&T, rather than using an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile.

--
--Tim Smith

In article <cuudnRK9Goc6I7DXnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <4gbr259u4fombhhaj34oeonve90bki4f7e@4ax.com>,
> > Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:17:23 -0400, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:06:39 -0400, Mark Crispin wrote:
> >>>> and no tethering.
> >>> You realize that's an AT&T issue, don't you? Other carriers allow it.
> >>
> >> iPhone 3.0 OS allows Tethering, and it is available in other
> >> countriues. Yes its an ATT issue.
> >
> > Although macrumors.com says AT&T will eventually offer tethering, but
> > possibly only as part of a $70/year data plan.
> >
> > Someone really needs to do something about the US cellular industry.
> >
>
> Really? Then step up and do it! If you hold your breath waiting for
> "somebody" you're going to turn very blue!

If someone wants to give me a few billion dollars to buy spectrum or at
least the few million it takes to effectively lobby Washington....

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Jun 8, 6:32*pm, "Ezekiel" <th...@nothere.com> wrote:
> "Mark Crispin" <m...@panda.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> > No MMS until the end of the summer, and no tethering. *A few new
> > applications (nothing that isn't on other phones) and now you can
> > download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.
>
> To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability except that
> the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet.
> Ultimately it's the same thing
> for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> ready... AT&T is not.

except, of course, other phones do mms and tethering on at&t...

<snip>

On Jun 8, 7:27*pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <h0kfv6$2k...@news.eternal-september.org>,
<snip>
> > ** Part of it could be residual payments still coming in from AT&T from
> > before the revenue sharing was cancelled.
>
> I think this is just Apple's rather kooky interpretation of accounting
> rules, according to which they have to use subscription-based accounting
> if they're planning to offer substantial free upgrades for products
> after shipping them. (Which is why they charge iPod Touch users for
> upgrades they give to iPhone users for free -- they don't use the
> subscription accounting for the Touch.)
>
> No other tech company seems to interpret accounting rules that way, so I
> suspect the whole might just be a ploy to spread out revenue to make it
> harder for competitors to figure out how well specific Apple products
> are doing. Apple is notoriously paranoid about this sort of thing.

more likely it's an excuse to allow them to charge itouch users for
upgrades they want for free, as well as a way so smooth revenue for
the sake of smoothing revenue (please investors).

<snip>

In article
<09a42159-7997-420a-bf66-a31a58f78ae7@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Jun 8, 6:32*pm, "Ezekiel" <th...@nothere.com> wrote:
> > "Mark Crispin" <m...@panda.com> wrote in message
> <snip>
> > > No MMS until the end of the summer, and no tethering. *A few new
> > > applications (nothing that isn't on other phones) and now you can
> > > download videos wirelessly instead of via iTunes.
> >
> > To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability except that
> > the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet.
> > Ultimately it's the same thing
> > for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> > ready... AT&T is not.
>
> except, of course, other phones do mms and tethering on at&t...

I suspect this is another one of those cases where the iPhone gets
treated differently because cellular carriers have noticed that people
who buy iPhones tend to actually use the features of the phone at a much
higher rate than users of other handsets. (Thus the iPhone's 65% mobile
browsing market share despite not having nearly that much market share,
etc.) AT&T might want some time to make sure their MMS infrastructure is
solid before traffic doubles....

Or, Apple might still be working on AT&T with respect to pricing.
Because you know left to their own devices AT&T will want to charge an
extra $30-50/month for tethering.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> > To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability except that
> > the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet.
> > Ultimately it's the same thing
> > for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> > ready... AT&T is not.
>
> except, of course, other phones do mms and tethering on at&t...

yes, but the ease of use and higher quality of the iphone makes it a
MUCH MORE used feature, so it takes time for companies to ramp up to
support such a popular product.

the iPhone now has 60% of all cell / internet traffic, so now you know
why it takes longer to roll out...

ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> > I think this is just Apple's rather kooky interpretation of accounting
> > rules, according to which they have to use subscription-based accounting
> > if they're planning to offer substantial free upgrades for products
> > after shipping them. (Which is why they charge iPod Touch users for
> > upgrades they give to iPhone users for free -- they don't use the
> > subscription accounting for the Touch.)
> >
> > No other tech company seems to interpret accounting rules that way, so I
> > suspect the whole might just be a ploy to spread out revenue to make it
> > harder for competitors to figure out how well specific Apple products
> > are doing. Apple is notoriously paranoid about this sort of thing.
>
> more likely it's an excuse to allow them to charge itouch users for
> upgrades they want for free, as well as a way so smooth revenue for
> the sake of smoothing revenue (please investors).

no, it's a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and apple's penchant for
being so precise at every level. while it's never been tested, it's
illegal to provide major feature upgrades to an existing product without
charging for it. strange, but true.

On Jun 8, 9:38*pm, David Moyer <dav...@world.com> wrote:
> ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > I think this is just Apple's rather kooky interpretation of accounting
> > > rules, according to which they have to use subscription-based accounting
> > > if they're planning to offer substantial free upgrades for products
> > > after shipping them. (Which is why they charge iPod Touch users for
> > > upgrades they give to iPhone users for free -- they don't use the
> > > subscription accounting for the Touch.)
>
> > > No other tech company seems to interpret accounting rules that way, so I
> > > suspect the whole might just be a ploy to spread out revenue to make it
> > > harder for competitors to figure out how well specific Apple products
> > > are doing. Apple is notoriously paranoid about this sort of thing.
>
> > more likely it's an excuse to allow them to charge itouch users for
> > upgrades *they want for free, as well as a way so smooth revenue for
> > the sake of smoothing revenue (please investors).
>
> no, it's a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and apple's penchant for
> being so precise at every level. while it's never been tested, it's
> illegal to provide major feature upgrades to an existing product without
> charging for it. strange, but true.

no, sarbanes oxley doesn't prohibit any such thing:
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf

At 08 Jun 2009 22:58:24 -0400 ZnU wrote:

> > > To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability
except that
> > > the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet.
> > > Ultimately it's the same thing
> > > for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> > > ready... AT&T is not.
> >
> > except, of course, other phones do mms and tethering on at&t...
>
> I suspect this is another one of those cases where the iPhone gets
> treated differently because cellular carriers have noticed that people
> who buy iPhones tend to actually use the features of the phone at a much
> higher rate than users of other handsets. (Thus the iPhone's 65% mobile
> browsing market share despite not having nearly that much market share,
> etc.) AT&T might want some time to make sure their MMS infrastructure is
> solid before traffic doubles....

I wonder if the Phone's implementation of MMS is non-standard. That might
explain both the delay at AT&T as well as the earlier reports that MMS will
only work over 3G (since "standard" MMS works over GPRS.)


> Or, Apple might still be working on AT&T with respect to pricing.
> Because you know left to their own devices AT&T will want to charge an
> extra $30-50/month for tethering.


I predict an extra $30, same as any other smartphone, which levels data
pricing with laptop data cards at $60. (Why should it cost more or less to
tether a laptop to an iPhone than it costs to use a dedicated laptop card?)

I suspect this will also trigger a data cap. AT&T sells unlimited data
plans for phones, but caps data at 5GB for laptop cards and phones with
tethering plans.

In article <BYmXl.7191$i01.5107@newsfe12.iad>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 08 Jun 2009 22:58:24 -0400 ZnU wrote:
>
> > > > To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability
> except that
> > > > the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet.
> > > > Ultimately it's the same thing
> > > > for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> > > > ready... AT&T is not.
> > >
> > > except, of course, other phones do mms and tethering on at&t...
> >
> > I suspect this is another one of those cases where the iPhone gets
> > treated differently because cellular carriers have noticed that people
> > who buy iPhones tend to actually use the features of the phone at a much
> > higher rate than users of other handsets. (Thus the iPhone's 65% mobile
> > browsing market share despite not having nearly that much market share,
> > etc.) AT&T might want some time to make sure their MMS infrastructure is
> > solid before traffic doubles....
>
> I wonder if the Phone's implementation of MMS is non-standard. That might
> explain both the delay at AT&T as well as the earlier reports that MMS will
> only work over 3G (since "standard" MMS works over GPRS.)
>
>
> > Or, Apple might still be working on AT&T with respect to pricing.
> > Because you know left to their own devices AT&T will want to charge an
> > extra $30-50/month for tethering.
>
>
> I predict an extra $30, same as any other smartphone, which levels data
> pricing with laptop data cards at $60. (Why should it cost more or less to
> tether a laptop to an iPhone than it costs to use a dedicated laptop card?)

I don't know. Why should bits sent via text message cost a couple of
hundred times as much as bits sent as part of a voice call, despite
having substantially less time-sensitive delivery requirements?

Mostly because the cellular carriers can get away with it, is why.

If a separate laptop connect plan is $60, they might decide to go ahead
and charge an extra $50 for tethering, on the theory that some people
are willing to pay $60 for the functionality, so obviously they'll be
willing to pay $50.

> I suspect this will also trigger a data cap. AT&T sells unlimited data
> plans for phones, but caps data at 5GB for laptop cards and phones with
> tethering plans.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, ed posted:
> On Jun 8, 9:38Â*pm, David Moyer <dav...@world.com> wrote:
>> no, it's a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
> no, sarbanes oxley doesn't prohibit any such thing:
> http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf

It doesn't matter how many times you explain it to Apple fanboys they will
continue clinging to that nonsensical excuse because they don't want to
admit that Apple cornholes its users.

People who actually work in the S-OX compliance business have tried to
explain that S-OX says no such thing. But when you have a cult, reality
rarely matters.

-- 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.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 21:32:40 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> To clarify... the iPhone does have MMS and tethering capability except that
> the AT&T network doesn't the capability yet. Ultimately it's the same thing
> for the end-user (no MMS/tethering) but it sounds like the iPhone is
> ready... AT&T is not.

Wrong. You can tether with AT&T and other phones, but not AT&T and an iPhone
(although I've heard of hacks).

Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote:

> People who actually work in the S-OX compliance business have tried to
> explain that S-OX says no such thing. But when you have a cult, reality
> rarely matters.

accountants are part of a cult? i doubt it... apple is just following
the rules...

In article <h0ke3i$mtv$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
"Ezekiel" <there@nothere.com> wrote:

> The biggest news IMO is the $100 reduction in the 8GB iPhone. It puts the
> cost of the iPhone at under $100 which is a big psychological barrier. In
> the grand scheme of things with the AT&T contract the $100 reduction isn't
> that big of a deal but psychologically being able to get a unit for $99 is
> going to attract a lot of buyers.

That and the "Find My Phone" application.

David Moyer wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc@panda.com> wrote:
>
> > People who actually work in the S-OX compliance business have tried to
> > explain that S-OX says no such thing. But when you have a cult, reality
> > rarely matters.
>
> accountants are part of a cult? i doubt it... apple is just following
> the rules...

i posted a link to to SOA which you say compells apple to charge for
the updates- go ahead and show us the rules in there that does such.

At 09 Jun 2009 03:07:08 -0400 ZnU wrote:

> > I wonder if the Phone's implementation of MMS is non-standard. That
might
> > explain both the delay at AT&T as well as the earlier reports that MMS
will
> > only work over 3G (since "standard" MMS works over GPRS.)
> >
> >
> > > Or, Apple might still be working on AT&T with respect to pricing.
> > > Because you know left to their own devices AT&T will want to charge
an
> > > extra $30-50/month for tethering.
> >
> >
> > I predict an extra $30, same as any other smartphone, which levels data
> > pricing with laptop data cards at $60. (Why should it cost more or
less to
> > tether a laptop to an iPhone than it costs to use a dedicated laptop
card?)
>
> I don't know. Why should bits sent via text message cost a couple of
> hundred times as much as bits sent as part of a voice call, despite
> having substantially less time-sensitive delivery requirements?
>
> Mostly because the cellular carriers can get away with it, is why.


True- it's called "what the market will bear." I respond by not using text
messaging- I haven't used it reglarly since my plan included the first 50
each month for free (around 2002!). If the rest of you'd join me, rates
would come down! ;-)


> If a separate laptop connect plan is $60, they might decide to go ahead
> and charge an extra $50 for tethering, on the theory that some people
> are willing to pay $60 for the functionality, so obviously they'll be
> willing to pay $50.


I doubt it, since AT&T leveled phone data pricing last year- partof the
increase in iPhone data from $20 to $30 was to create parity in AT&T's
price plans- "dumbphones" pay $15, smartphones/iPhones all pay $30. Since
other smartphones pay $30 extra for tethering (to create parity with the
$60 data card plan) it stands to reason the iPhone will see the same $30
add-on.

Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote in news:apony-B702A4.13210308062009
@news.qwest.net:

> Way too much information to list... but below is the best link from
> bottom to top of all the big changes to the computing and phone worlds
> that are coming up.
>
> The full video will appear later today, but if you want to catch up on
> today's events... go here... (again, scroll to the bottom and work UP)
>
> EXCELLENT --->
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/08/p...ve-from-wwdc-2
> 009/
>

Cut and paste is news on iPhone....but "Big News"??

I don't think so, sport....


--
-----
Larry

If a man goes way out into the woods all alone and says something,
is it still wrong, even though no woman hears him?

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, ed posted:
> David Moyer wrote:
>>> People who actually work in the S-OX compliance business have tried to
>>> explain that S-OX says no such thing. But when you have a cult, reality
>>> rarely matters.
>> accountants are part of a cult? i doubt it... apple is just following
>> the rules...
> i posted a link to to SOA which you say compells apple to charge for
> the updates- go ahead and show us the rules in there that does such.

It's a matter of faith to the Apple fanboy cultists such as Oxtard that
Apple would never lie or do anything evil. They don't know anything about
S-OX, and assume that only accountants (who presumably don't care about
iToys) know anything about S-OX. Therefore, it must be the fault of S-OX
and the accountants.

S-OX is bad law for many reasons; it was a complete overreaction to the
Enron and Worldcom debacles. On the other hand, lots of people make their
living from the S-OX compliance business. ;-)

-- 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 wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, ed posted:
>> David Moyer wrote:
>>>> People who actually work in the S-OX compliance business have tried to
>>>> explain that S-OX says no such thing. But when you have a cult,
>>>> reality
>>>> rarely matters.
>>> accountants are part of a cult? i doubt it... apple is just following
>>> the rules...
>> i posted a link to to SOA which you say compells apple to charge for
>> the updates- go ahead and show us the rules in there that does such.
>
> It's a matter of faith to the Apple fanboy cultists such as Oxtard that
> Apple would never lie or do anything evil. They don't know anything
> about S-OX, and assume that only accountants (who presumably don't care
> about iToys) know anything about S-OX. Therefore, it must be the fault
> of S-OX and the accountants.
>
> S-OX is bad law for many reasons; it was a complete overreaction to the
> Enron and Worldcom debacles. On the other hand, lots of people make
> their living from the S-OX compliance business. ;-)
>

Perhaps S-OX could have been done better. We need to know that a
company's books actually reflect its financial condition. I think S-OX
does that or comes as close a a law can.

If everyone were honest, we could wipe a lot of laws off the books.
Unfortunately, I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.