Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-6EA753.19485918102007@news.giganews.com:
> In article <cYednai82N4YiIXanZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
>> news:labolide-CF5E3F.19224918102007 @news.giganews.com:
>>
>> > In article <_f6dnaEh3MYCjIXanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:labolide-FB26DE.18504218102007@news.giganews.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <colalovesmacs-31629C.19300718102007@mpls-nnrp-
03.inet.qwest.net>
>> >> > ,
>> >> > Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >> Right now on the front page of iTunes there's an ad for
>> >> >> > >> the Nano "a little video for everyone". You click on the
>> >> >> > >> ad and it takes you to the Apple Store where you can use
>> >> >> > >> your Apple ID and buy one.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > and right under the main iTunes Menu -
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Shop for iTunes Products
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > takes you right to the world of iPods.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Nope- no such thing in the latest version. In fact, there is
>> >> >> > no mention of iPods anywhere on the store when you open it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> but you are probably still trying to run the Windows version.
>> >> >> Get a life, get the real iTunes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Version 7.4.2 -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's the 4th choice under the MAIN iTunes Menu.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Shop for iTunes Products"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> so once again, Scott is always playing second to Mac users.
>> >> >
>> >> > His pronouncement that 18 of his 20 CDs were copy protected
>> >> > showed that he seems to be more interested in hearing himself
>> >> > talk than someone who actually knows.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry Scott, you brought this on yourself.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Brought what on? It's not there.
>> >
>> > Still waiting to hear about your 18 newly purchased CDs that were
>> > copy-protected, or was this a "drinking moment'?
>> >
>>
>> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
>> swears is there.
>
> LOL. The big house guy can only retort by changing the subject.
>
LOL. The only guy to talk about my house (you) is the one who changed
the subject. Your obsession about it is pathetic.
In article <xPednafz8qxzhoXanZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
> news:labolide-6EA753.19485918102007@news.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <cYednai82N4YiIXanZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >
> >> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:labolide-CF5E3F.19224918102007 @news.giganews.com:
> >>
> >> > In article <_f6dnaEh3MYCjIXanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> >> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:labolide-FB26DE.18504218102007@news.giganews.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > <colalovesmacs-31629C.19300718102007@mpls-nnrp-
> 03.inet.qwest.net>
> >> >> > ,
> >> >> > Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > >> Right now on the front page of iTunes there's an ad for
> >> >> >> > >> the Nano "a little video for everyone". You click on the
> >> >> >> > >> ad and it takes you to the Apple Store where you can use
> >> >> >> > >> your Apple ID and buy one.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > and right under the main iTunes Menu -
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Shop for iTunes Products
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > takes you right to the world of iPods.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Nope- no such thing in the latest version. In fact, there is
> >> >> >> > no mention of iPods anywhere on the store when you open it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> but you are probably still trying to run the Windows version.
> >> >> >> Get a life, get the real iTunes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Version 7.4.2 -
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's the 4th choice under the MAIN iTunes Menu.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Shop for iTunes Products"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> so once again, Scott is always playing second to Mac users.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > His pronouncement that 18 of his 20 CDs were copy protected
> >> >> > showed that he seems to be more interested in hearing himself
> >> >> > talk than someone who actually knows.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry Scott, you brought this on yourself.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Brought what on? It's not there.
> >> >
> >> > Still waiting to hear about your 18 newly purchased CDs that were
> >> > copy-protected, or was this a "drinking moment'?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
> >> swears is there.
> >
> > LOL. The big house guy can only retort by changing the subject.
> >
>
> LOL. The only guy to talk about my house (you) is the one who changed
> the subject. Your obsession about it is pathetic.
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-2C1CDE.20134818102007
@news.giganews.com:
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
I have been putting up- you simply haven't liked the answers. The fact
that I won't answer your specific question is maddening you. You see, some
of us actually don't wait for the government to send us our 'paycheck' at
the beginning of the month. We leave the house and get compensated for
working. Check with one of your neighbors- they might know what I'm
talking about and can fill you in on the details. I decided after your
insistance that I was avoiding the question to do just that. This comes
not from an inability to answer the question, but a conscious decision not
to answer the question.
Somehow, you got the opinion that I owed you an answer. You were wrong.
Don't like it? Go away. Killfile me. Find another thread. Get a life.
Your options are numerous.
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote:
>
>
>>notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>His clients are probably as virtual as the various nyms he posts under.
>>>
>>>Let's see,
>>>
>>>Oxford, Bill Gates, Mark Thompson, none, Wegie, Mr T, Gene Jones.
>>>
>>>Seven "clients", seven nyms. Coincidence? You decide...
>>
>>they are "pen names", not nyms.
>>
>>http://www.ivanhoffman.com/pennames.html
>>
>>and i have over 100 clients,
>
>
> Is that your feedback rating on eBay?
>
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-F9DE93.22044118102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
>> swears is there.
>
> no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
>
> see...
>
> http://snipurl.com/1scpk
>
> -
>
You lied and you know it. You said it was ther for all to see, and then
you said it wasn't.
> > no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
> >
> > see...
> >
> > http://snipurl.com/1scpk
> >
> > -
>
> You lied and you know it. You said it was ther for all to see, and then
> you said it wasn't.
It's there, just like I said... this link proves it:
> How does the network know whether you're actively downloading data or
> not?
The way I understand it (and please be gentle- I'm not a tech- I used to
own a Cingular dealership and am working off of ancient dealer training,
which was FAR from complete!), if you're downloading, the phone is
"busy," if you're not, it's idle and can receive the call notification.
If the phone doesn't acknowledge the call notification (which it can't if
it's actively downloading) the call goes to voicemail.
> It's all just packets at the network level, and I can't think of
> how it would know that a given packet was going to be immediately
> followed by another packet that was part of the same stream. Unless it
> was paying much more attention to high-level protocols than I would
> consider likely.
After receiving a downloaded data packet, the phone requests the
following one, which the network then serves up until there are no more
requests, and the phone is idle again (and able to receive calls.)
Again, my explanation is as over-simplified and incomplete as my
knowledge on the subject. ;-) Corrections and completions are welcome!
> Smart phones now have the hardware features to run "real" operating
> systems and complex applications. This gives a pretty serious advantage
> to companies that can leverage code, and perhaps more importantly
> developer experience, from fully-fledged desktop operating systems.
One could just as easily argue the opposite point- WinCE is overblown and
akward BECAUSE it's trying to emulate a desktop experience on a device
unsuited to the task by size, if not by computing power. RIM has no such
hangup, and has designed a portable messaging device from ground up.
Admittedly, Apple has done a finer job of scaling portions of the desktop
concept to a phone, particularly for a "rookie" effort, but that success
comes at a price of a limited feature set. (Palm and WinCE were launched
with free SDKs and encouraged third party system improvements from the
get go.)
> So, RIM might be a little screwed here, long term.
Perhaps, but as devices get more complex, they might have a niche in
keeping it simple. Many people like simple. Considering the number of
phones today with real e-mail capability, I'm constantly amazed at the
continued growth of the popularity of texting- an essentially ancient,
extremely limited, technology. But nothing beats SMS for the ease of
delivering short messages. If RIM keeps it simple and user friendly,
they could be in for the long haul. (Besides, the hardware is only half
their business. Selling BIS and BES is the real action. RIM is now
selling software to OEMs, so you can get "Blackberry Mail" on Symbian and
WinMo devices now. If they find their way into the iPhone, then the
iPhone will be a option for corporate e-mail.)
> And Microsoft, while
> it meets the above requirements, seems these days to be having trouble
> even leveraging its desktop operating system experience and technology
> into new versions of its desktop operating system....
Part of the problem (which Apple faces as well) is that the line between
OS and app is getting fuzzier all of the time. Microsoft, like them or
not, built a pretty decent OS with XP. Same with Apple and OSX.
Frankly, it seems to me, Vista and Leopard are here (or almost here) more
because THEY need to sell a new OS more than we needed buy one! There's
little Vista accomplishes that XP couldn't have been upgraded to do, but
that marketing "lifecycle clock" was ticking. "Jeez, we haven't released
a new OS in HOW long?" shouldn't be the question that a new OS answers!
;-)
> > It's very hard to knock out a deep-seated incumbent platform in
business,
> > and you can't beat RIM by being as good or only a little better, you
have
> > to be a LOT better.
>
> The iPhone *is* a lot better. Not specifically at enterprise e-mail,
but
> at other things, some of which appeal to a much larger market than
> enterprise e-mail does. If iPhones become popular because they're great
> media players, have a really good web browser, etc. there's going to be
> a strong incentive for companies to let people access their mail on the
> iPhones they already own, instead of buying them BlackBerries on the
> company dime.
In Shambala, perhaps, (sorry- I'm listening to Three Dog Night on my
WinMo phone as I peck this!) but many corporations and organizations have
very draconian policies as to what their data "touches," and often for
good reason. My wife was issued a Blackberry because her employer will
not let personal phones or PCs access the corporate VPN, nor will they
open their Exchange Server for mobile access. (Not even OMA or IMAP.)
Neither is she allowed to add her personal e-mail account to her
Blackberry (despite the fact it can handle 10 accounts simultaneously!)
so she lugs two phones everywhere.
> Sometimes it's not that hard to knock out even a well established niche
> competitor, if you make a product with broader appeal that also
> satisfies most of the requirements of that niche.
But as Kurt (and you) pointed out- the Blackberries are typically bought
by companies to be issued to employees. This gives the company total
control, which they like for security reasons. Regardless of how
"secure" Apple, or anyone else, promises to make a phone, the fact that a
device that now holds sensitive corporate data could, later that day, be
connected to a WiFi network at a Starbucks to download Avril Lavigne
tunes will keep IT departments awake at night chewing Rolaids, regardless
of how unlikely that corporate data could be compromised!
> (The iPod Touch seems
> poised to do this to the traditional non-phone PDA market practically
> overnight, as soon as it gets third-party apps.)
It's a year or two too late- the Smartphone already crippled the
standalone PDA market. Standalone PDAs are becoming almot as rare as a
pearl of wisdom from our buddy Oxford. ;-)
Oxford wrote:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
>> swears is there.
>
> no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
>
> see...
>
> http://snipurl.com/1scpk
> >> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
> >> swears is there.
> >
> > no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
> >
> > see...
> >
> > http://snipurl.com/1scpk
>
> Windows users may find that under Help.
thanks for that info Tinman, scott has now been shown the door.
In article <ff9d7p$ngi$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 18 Oct 2007 21:57:04 -0400 ZnU wrote:
[snip; interesting explanation of how EDGE handles data]
> > Smart phones now have the hardware features to run "real" operating
> > systems and complex applications. This gives a pretty serious advantage
> > to companies that can leverage code, and perhaps more importantly
> > developer experience, from fully-fledged desktop operating systems.
>
>
> One could just as easily argue the opposite point- WinCE is overblown and
> akward BECAUSE it's trying to emulate a desktop experience on a device
> unsuited to the task by size, if not by computing power. RIM has no such
> hangup, and has designed a portable messaging device from ground up.
> Admittedly, Apple has done a finer job of scaling portions of the desktop
> concept to a phone, particularly for a "rookie" effort, but that success
> comes at a price of a limited feature set.
Sure, trying to stick desktop UI onto a phone is not a good move. But
building a mobile UI, and the rest of a mobile platform, using rich
technologies borrowed from a desktop OS clearly has big advantages. The
iPhone has the most impressive UI of any mobile phone on the market, for
instance, and a good part of that is enabled by OS X's advanced graphics
engine.
> (Palm and WinCE were launched with free SDKs and encouraged third
> party system improvements from the get go.)
I'm sure Apple could have done this if they hadn't minded waiting
waiting longer to launch the device.
I'd expect the richness of the SDK will actually be yet another place
where the platform'ss heritage as a desktop operating system gives it a
major advantage. The iPhone (so say the hackers) supposedly has most of
Cocoa on it. I can't imagine the Palm or RIM APIs are anywhere near as
complete.
> > So, RIM might be a little screwed here, long term.
>
> Perhaps, but as devices get more complex, they might have a niche in
> keeping it simple. Many people like simple. Considering the number of
> phones today with real e-mail capability, I'm constantly amazed at the
> continued growth of the popularity of texting- an essentially ancient,
> extremely limited, technology. But nothing beats SMS for the ease of
> delivering short messages. If RIM keeps it simple and user friendly,
> they could be in for the long haul.
The real trick, though, isn't keeping things simple under the hood...
it's implementing extremely advanced capabilities and making them *look*
simple. This is the hardest thing of all, and the thing that Apple does
better than anyone else I can think of.
> (Besides, the hardware is only half their business. Selling BIS and
> BES is the real action. RIM is now selling software to OEMs, so you
> can get "Blackberry Mail" on Symbian and WinMo devices now. If they
> find their way into the iPhone, then the iPhone will be a option for
> corporate e-mail.)
It would probably be a good move on their part. While it's not
impossible, Apple probably won't provide this as a first-party feature,
and RIM software could easily emerge as the standard solution on the
iPhone.
[snip]
> > Sometimes it's not that hard to knock out even a well established niche
> > competitor, if you make a product with broader appeal that also
> > satisfies most of the requirements of that niche.
>
> But as Kurt (and you) pointed out- the Blackberries are typically bought
> by companies to be issued to employees. This gives the company total
> control, which they like for security reasons. Regardless of how
> "secure" Apple, or anyone else, promises to make a phone, the fact that a
> device that now holds sensitive corporate data could, later that day, be
> connected to a WiFi network at a Starbucks to download Avril Lavigne
> tunes will keep IT departments awake at night chewing Rolaids, regardless
> of how unlikely that corporate data could be compromised!
OK, so the BlackBerry might still have a niche for the paranoid, as
Apple is unlikely to introduce a special locked down corporate version
of the iPhone. But I'm not sure how big that niche is even relative to
the existing market for the BlackBerry, and I'm pretty sure it's tiny
compared to the potential market for the iPhone.
> > (The iPod Touch seems poised to do this to the traditional
> > non-phone PDA market practically overnight, as soon as it gets
> > third-party apps.)
>
> It's a year or two too late- the Smartphone already crippled the
> standalone PDA market. Standalone PDAs are becoming almot as rare as
> a pearl of wisdom from our buddy Oxford. ;-)
Oh, I agree, which is why I identified that market as a niche.
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
In article <cYednam82N7IiIXanZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> news:znu-4E554D.22213818102007@news.individual.net:
>
> > In article <_f6dnach3MZUjYXanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-ABDEFD.21231718102007
> >> @news.individual.net:
> >>
> >> > In article <p_udnR92dusMn4XanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> >> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2FB98E.20495318102007
> >> >> @news.individual.net:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article <nfydnTJu3KUpZoranZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> >> >> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > > Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why does the strategy of using downloads to promote the sale of
> >> >> > other products require those other products to be purchased from
> >> >> > the exact same source as the downloads?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ease of research, ease of checkout, the ability of the comapny to
> >> >> make an impulse sale all come to mind. Basic principles of retail
> >> >> sales. Surely, a genius such as yourself doesn't need to that
> >> >> explained to him.
> >> >
> >> > So what you're saying is that the retail store tricks Amazon can
> >> > utilize (the virtual equivalent of putting magazines by the
> >> > checkout line at the supermarket) will form the basis of a
> >> > sustainable business, while the iTMS is sufficiently ineffective at
> >> > adding value to the iPod to form the basis of a sustainable
> >> > business?
> >> >
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >>
> >> Nope, but again you are close. You got the first part right.
> >>
> >> C'mon, child- I'm rooting for you.
> >
> > Congratulations, you're in the killfile.
> >
>
> Doubtful, but I promise not to lose a bunch of sleep over it if it is true.
On Oct 18, 11:32 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ff9d7p$ng...@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
> > At 18 Oct 2007 21:57:04 -0400 ZnU wrote:
>
> > (Palm and WinCE were launched with free SDKs and encouraged third
> > party system improvements from the get go.)
>
> I'm sure Apple could have done this if they hadn't minded waiting
> waiting longer to launch the device.
>
> I'd expect the richness of the SDK will actually be yet another place
> where the platform'ss heritage as a desktop operating system gives it a
> major advantage. The iPhone (so say the hackers) supposedly has most of
> Cocoa on it.
UIKit, which is mostly AppKit with all the NSs changed to UIs
Basically the iPhone API was Apple taking a razor to AppKit to reduce
it to what it needed for the phone.
The beauty of the system is how all the disparate elements work
together so cleanly.
There's OpenGL [ES] in there, which is AFAIK is either being rendered
by a bespoke software renderer on the ARM (or perhaps a PowerVR-
derived tile-based hw renderer) onto surfaces. OS X's CoreGraphics/
WindowServer is in there, which was layered over OpenGL back in 10.2
days. LayerKit uses CoreGraphics and the underlying GL renderer to do
all the cool transitions and stuff. All this coolness comes from the
WindowServer's ability to do backing-store windowing for flicker-free
redrawing, backing by the sufficient rendering ability of the graphics
stack.
[My PPC-6700, state of the art in 2006, doesn't even have enough
rendering oomph to smoothly redraw the start menu when it pops down.]
Ye Age Olde BSD / C stdlib subsystem is in there, providing stable and
known capabilities. At work I ported our internal HTTP proxy product
to the iPhone in about 5 minutes.
> I can't imagine the Palm or RIM APIs are anywhere near as
> complete.
To be fair, J2ME is also a pretty complete system, but it lacks the
tight hw integration of the OS X stack on this new hw.
Also, Micorsoft has been working long if not hard on its C# /
Compact .net frameworks.
.. . .
> > > (The iPod Touch seems poised to do this to the traditional
> > > non-phone PDA market practically overnight, as soon as it gets
> > > third-party apps.)
>
> > It's a year or two too late- the Smartphone already crippled the
> > standalone PDA market. Standalone PDAs are becoming almot as rare as
> > a pearl of wisdom from our buddy Oxford. ;-)
>
> Oh, I agree, which is why I identified that market as a niche.
With WiMax there's going to be a second-coming of the standalone
PDA. . . I've got a half-dozen apps I want to write for this guy,
enough to keep me busy for a year or three . . .
In article <1192777730.186873.318860@k35g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Mr X <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 11:32 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > I can't imagine the Palm or RIM APIs are anywhere near as complete.
>
> To be fair, J2ME is also a pretty complete system, but it lacks the
> tight hw integration of the OS X stack on this new hw.
>
> Also, Micorsoft has been working long if not hard on its C# / Compact
> .net frameworks.
Sure. Sun, Microsoft and Apple all have real desktop platforms, so their
mobile platforms have a lot of the same richness. This is a serious
danger to RIM, Palm, and a lot of the traditional cell phone vendors.
> > > > (The iPod Touch seems poised to do this to the traditional
> > > > non-phone PDA market practically overnight, as soon as it gets
> > > > third-party apps.)
> >
> > > It's a year or two too late- the Smartphone already crippled the
> > > standalone PDA market. Standalone PDAs are becoming almot as
> > > rare as a pearl of wisdom from our buddy Oxford. ;-)
> >
> > Oh, I agree, which is why I identified that market as a niche.
>
> With WiMax there's going to be a second-coming of the standalone PDA.
> . . I've got a half-dozen apps I want to write for this guy, enough
> to keep me busy for a year or three . . .
Adding phone hardware to a device seems to be so cheap now (compare the
price of the Touch and the iPhone) that the only thing that I would
think would prevent people from getting smart phones rather than PDAs is
if the mobile platform they want isn't available on a device from their
carrier (and they can't or won't switch).
--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-31629C.19300718102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> >> Right now on the front page of iTunes there's an ad for the Nano "a
>> >> little video for everyone". You click on the ad and it takes you to
>> >> the Apple Store where you can use your Apple ID and buy one.
>> >
>> > and right under the main iTunes Menu -
>> >
>> > Shop for iTunes Products
>> >
>> > takes you right to the world of iPods.
>>
>> Nope- no such thing in the latest version. In fact, there is no mention
>> of
>> iPods anywhere on the store when you open it.
>
> but you are probably still trying to run the Windows version. Get a
> life, get the real iTunes.
>
> Version 7.4.2 -
>
> It's the 4th choice under the MAIN iTunes Menu.
>
> "Shop for iTunes Products"
>
> so once again, Scott is always playing second to Mac users.
I'm using the Windows versions. It's under the Help menu.
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:lJadnegF8OmssIXanZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
> news:colalovesmacs-F9DE93.22044118102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
>>> swears is there.
>>
>> no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
>>
>> see...
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/1scpk
>>
>> -
>>
>
> You lied and you know it. You said it was ther for all to see, and then
> you said it wasn't.
>
> Maybe Oxtard is the better name for you.
I'm running iTunes 7.4.3.1 for Windows. The ad is right between the "New
Releases" section and "What's hot".
In article <3tCdnYdQuJQFv4XanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in news:labolide-2C1CDE.20134818102007
> @news.giganews.com:
>
>
> >
> > Put up or shut up.
> >
>
> I have been putting up- you simply haven't liked the answers. The fact
> that I won't answer your specific question is maddening you. You see, some
> of us actually don't wait for the government to send us our 'paycheck' at
> the beginning of the month. We leave the house and get compensated for
> working. Check with one of your neighbors- they might know what I'm
> talking about and can fill you in on the details. I decided after your
> insistance that I was avoiding the question to do just that. This comes
> not from an inability to answer the question, but a conscious decision not
> to answer the question.
>
> Somehow, you got the opinion that I owed you an answer. You were wrong.
> Don't like it? Go away. Killfile me. Find another thread. Get a life.
> Your options are numerous.
You come up here acting like a spoiled child and berate everyone who
doesn't agree with you with childish taunts.
I obviously bruised your ego, and I could care less that you lie or not.
Just wanted to see if you had it in you to come clean.
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
news:labolide-F9C410.09190319102007@news.giganews.com:
> In article <3tCdnYdQuJQFv4XanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in
>> news:labolide-2C1CDE.20134818102007 @news.giganews.com:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Put up or shut up.
>> >
>>
>> I have been putting up- you simply haven't liked the answers. The
>> fact that I won't answer your specific question is maddening you.
>> You see, some of us actually don't wait for the government to send
>> us our 'paycheck' at the beginning of the month. We leave the house
>> and get compensated for working. Check with one of your neighbors-
>> they might know what I'm talking about and can fill you in on the
>> details. I decided after your insistance that I was avoiding the
>> question to do just that. This comes not from an inability to answer
>> the question, but a conscious decision not to answer the question.
>>
>> Somehow, you got the opinion that I owed you an answer. You were
>> wrong. Don't like it? Go away. Killfile me. Find another thread.
>> Get a life. Your options are numerous.
>
> You come up here acting like a spoiled child and berate everyone who
> doesn't agree with you with childish taunts.
Hardly. I presented an opposing view that was contrary to the popular
opinion if Apple enthusiasts. I can't help it if they presented
themselves as a bunch of dreamers that can't separate reality from
fantasy (see Oxford's posts as an example).
>
> I obviously bruised your ego,
Far from it- it will be a very cold day in hell before the opinions of
anyone on here abvout me come close to having any impact on me.
> and I could care less that you lie or
> not.
I never lied. You just acted like an ass when I didn't answer your
question.
> Just wanted to see if you had it in you to come clean.
I have nothing to come clean about. I made an honest and accurate
statement.
In article <7bWdnXS0isp9roTanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> > You come up here acting like a spoiled child and berate everyone who
> > doesn't agree with you with childish taunts.
>
> Hardly. I presented an opposing view that was contrary to the popular
> opinion if Apple enthusiasts. I can't help it if they presented
> themselves as a bunch of dreamers that can't separate reality from
> fantasy (see Oxford's posts as an example).
Oxford is hardly a good example of an "Apple enthusiast".
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>
>> >> Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
>> >> swears is there.
>> >
>> > no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
>> >
>> > see...
>> >
>> > http://snipurl.com/1scpk
>>
>> Windows users may find that under Help.
>
> thanks for that info Tinman, scott has now been shown the door.
>
Scott hasn't been shown anything- they have a link to the Apple store
hidden in the help menu. One of the five stupidest things I have ever
seen.
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2FB98E.20495318102007
@news.individual.net:
> In article <nfydnTJu3KUpZoranZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
>> news:znu-458E99.19530818102007@news.individual.net:
>>
>> > In article <QvOdnWtFyYnpcoranZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> Unless Apple can drive a significant cost out of the operation,
>> >> simply reducing the cost from the label isn't going to be enough
>> >> to show a significant profit. Unlike Amazon, their downloads are
>> >> the only game in town for their storefront. No profit on them, no
>> >> profit at all. Amazon, otoh, offers thousands of products for
>> >> sale at their storefront, many of which carry lark markups.
>> >> Amazon doesn't have to make a profit on the downloads- they can
>> >> offer them as loss leaders to generate traffic and still make a
>> >> mint.
>> >
>> > Which is precisely what Apple does with its downloads.
>>
>> No it doesn't- nothing but downloads available for purchase on
>> iTunes.
>>
>> > Except instead of offering them as loss-leaders to promote a bunch
>> > of largely unrelated products that happen to be sold from the same
>> > web site, they offer them as loss-leaders for iPods and iPhones.
>>
>> Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
>
> Why does the strategy of using downloads to promote the sale of other
> products require those other products to be purchased from the exact
> same source as the downloads?
Ease of use resulting in less navigational time for the customer, ease
of payment, more impulse selling opportunities, reduced backen costs
resulting in greater profitability...... the reasons why are exremely
obvious.
>
> For the record, Apple *does* in fact promote the iPod models directly
> through the iTunes Music Store. When I load it up right now there's a
> button I can click to jump right to the Apple Store and buy a nano.
I can click through anywhere on the net, just like I could buy my
groceries by starting at a fruit and vegetable stand, going to the meat
market they recommend, hitting the local dairy they have a flyer for and
the n go the bakery the farmer's wife uses.. Most consumers are
inclined to spend more money in stores where they can satisfy multiple
needs with one visit and one transaction. The internet is no different
than brick and mortar in this regard- the average consumer is going to
look for convenience and price when shopping anywhere. Apple provides
neither of these in their current state.
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote in
news:mr-C20D96.08551219102007@News.Individual.NET:
> In article <cYednam82N7IiIXanZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
>> news:znu-4E554D.22213818102007@news.individual.net:
>>
>> > In article <_f6dnach3MZUjYXanZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-ABDEFD.21231718102007
>> >> @news.individual.net:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <p_udnR92dusMn4XanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> >> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2FB98E.20495318102007
>> >> >> @news.individual.net:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article <nfydnTJu3KUpZoranZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> >> >> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why does the strategy of using downloads to promote the sale
>> >> >> > of other products require those other products to be
>> >> >> > purchased from the exact same source as the downloads?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ease of research, ease of checkout, the ability of the comapny
>> >> >> to make an impulse sale all come to mind. Basic principles of
>> >> >> retail sales. Surely, a genius such as yourself doesn't need
>> >> >> to that explained to him.
>> >> >
>> >> > So what you're saying is that the retail store tricks Amazon can
>> >> > utilize (the virtual equivalent of putting magazines by the
>> >> > checkout line at the supermarket) will form the basis of a
>> >> > sustainable business, while the iTMS is sufficiently ineffective
>> >> > at adding value to the iPod to form the basis of a sustainable
>> >> > business?
>> >> >
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Nope, but again you are close. You got the first part right.
>> >>
>> >> C'mon, child- I'm rooting for you.
>> >
>> > Congratulations, you're in the killfile.
>> >
>>
>> Doubtful, but I promise not to lose a bunch of sleep over it if it is
>> true.
>
> You're busy loosing the argument. :P
>
>
Great- a troll that can't spell.
I lost nothing- your friend has the inability to reason beyond his
primitive means.
In article <7bWdnXS0isp9roTanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@adelphia.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
> >> I have been putting up- you simply haven't liked the answers. The
> >> fact that I won't answer your specific question is maddening you.
> >> You see, some of us actually don't wait for the government to send
> >> us our 'paycheck' at the beginning of the month. We leave the house
> >> and get compensated for working. Check with one of your neighbors-
> >> they might know what I'm talking about and can fill you in on the
> >> details. I decided after your insistance that I was avoiding the
> >> question to do just that. This comes not from an inability to answer
> >> the question, but a conscious decision not to answer the question.
> >>
> >> Somehow, you got the opinion that I owed you an answer. You were
> >> wrong. Don't like it? Go away. Killfile me. Find another thread.
> >> Get a life. Your options are numerous.
> >
> > You come up here acting like a spoiled child and berate everyone who
> > doesn't agree with you with childish taunts.
>
> Hardly. I presented an opposing view that was contrary to the popular
> opinion if Apple enthusiasts. I can't help it if they presented
> themselves as a bunch of dreamers that can't separate reality from
> fantasy (see Oxford's posts as an example).
But an "opposing view" should provide intelligence and food for future
thought, but NONE of your posts do that.
Yes, Apple users are idealists, they are the ones that have propelled
society forward like no others of the last 30 years. They change things,
they push the human race forward. Everyone agrees with that.
But to present your "ideas as valid" with no basis is what is questioned.
Apple users "know" what they do today, will be accepted by larger
society in the future, but people still using windows or non
ipods/iphones really aren't part of the picture since they don't control
how the future looks. They are the "followers" of Apple, the MS users,
the people that don't make a difference during their lifetimes.
Simply put, they don't have any say over the destiny of these spaces.
Apple users set all the rules WE all play by, and that's been true for
decades. It's not going to change so why fight it? Why use a poorer
quality device just to show you are uneducated? It doesn't make sense.
> > I obviously bruised your ego,
>
> Far from it- it will be a very cold day in hell before the opinions of
> anyone on here abvout me come close to having any impact on me.
Apple users don't use "opinions" they just use facts based on "knowledge"
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:8cWdnfYN_NkLqoTanZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in news:znu-2FB98E.20495318102007
> @news.individual.net:
>
>> In article <nfydnTJu3KUpZoranZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:znu-458E99.19530818102007@news.individual.net:
>>>
>>> > In article <QvOdnWtFyYnpcoranZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
>>> > Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > [snip]
>>> >
>>> >> Unless Apple can drive a significant cost out of the operation,
>>> >> simply reducing the cost from the label isn't going to be enough
>>> >> to show a significant profit. Unlike Amazon, their downloads are
>>> >> the only game in town for their storefront. No profit on them, no
>>> >> profit at all. Amazon, otoh, offers thousands of products for
>>> >> sale at their storefront, many of which carry lark markups.
>>> >> Amazon doesn't have to make a profit on the downloads- they can
>>> >> offer them as loss leaders to generate traffic and still make a
>>> >> mint.
>>> >
>>> > Which is precisely what Apple does with its downloads.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't- nothing but downloads available for purchase on
>>> iTunes.
>>>
>>> > Except instead of offering them as loss-leaders to promote a bunch
>>> > of largely unrelated products that happen to be sold from the same
>>> > web site, they offer them as loss-leaders for iPods and iPhones.
>>>
>>> Great- show me where in the iTunes store I can buy an iPod.
>>
>> Why does the strategy of using downloads to promote the sale of other
>> products require those other products to be purchased from the exact
>> same source as the downloads?
>
> Ease of use resulting in less navigational time for the customer, ease
> of payment, more impulse selling opportunities, reduced backen costs
> resulting in greater profitability...... the reasons why are exremely
> obvious.
>
>
>>
>> For the record, Apple *does* in fact promote the iPod models directly
>> through the iTunes Music Store. When I load it up right now there's a
>> button I can click to jump right to the Apple Store and buy a nano.
>
> I can click through anywhere on the net, just like I could buy my
> groceries by starting at a fruit and vegetable stand, going to the meat
> market they recommend, hitting the local dairy they have a flyer for and
> the n go the bakery the farmer's wife uses.. Most consumers are
> inclined to spend more money in stores where they can satisfy multiple
> needs with one visit and one transaction. The internet is no different
> than brick and mortar in this regard- the average consumer is going to
> look for convenience and price when shopping anywhere. Apple provides
> neither of these in their current state.
>
I click on a link in iTunes. It brings up the apple store. I use the same
id I use for iTunes at the store and it uses my billing information that's
already on file. If I enable one click, it's just as easy as buying from
Amazon.
But I really don't think Apple has any trouble selling iPods.
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
> news:colalovesmacs-F9DE93.22044118102007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>
>>Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Still waiting to see this magical portion of iTunes that Oxturd
>>>swears is there.
>>
>>no mac user is going to deny it because it's 100% true.
>>
>>see...
>>
>>http://snipurl.com/1scpk
>>
>>-
>>
>
>
> You lied and you know it. You said it was ther for all to see, and then
> you said it wasn't.
>
> Maybe Oxtard is the better name for you.
Try Oxretard, as it fits a bit better. His oxfords squeak.
> In article <7bWdnXS0isp9roTanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@adelphia.com>,
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>> >> I have been putting up- you simply haven't liked the answers. The
>> >> fact that I won't answer your specific question is maddening you.
>> >> You see, some of us actually don't wait for the government to
send
>> >> us our 'paycheck' at the beginning of the month. We leave the
house
>> >> and get compensated for working. Check with one of your
neighbors-
>> >> they might know what I'm talking about and can fill you in on the
>> >> details. I decided after your insistance that I was avoiding the
>> >> question to do just that. This comes not from an inability to
answer
>> >> the question, but a conscious decision not to answer the question.
>> >>
>> >> Somehow, you got the opinion that I owed you an answer. You were
>> >> wrong. Don't like it? Go away. Killfile me. Find another
thread.
>> >> Get a life. Your options are numerous.
>> >
>> > You come up here acting like a spoiled child and berate everyone
who
>> > doesn't agree with you with childish taunts.
>>
>> Hardly. I presented an opposing view that was contrary to the
popular
>> opinion if Apple enthusiasts. I can't help it if they presented
>> themselves as a bunch of dreamers that can't separate reality from
>> fantasy (see Oxford's posts as an example).
>
> But an "opposing view" should provide intelligence and food for future
> thought, but NONE of your posts do that.
They do- you are simply too poorly educated to understand it.
>
> Yes, Apple users are idealists,
I'd like to teach the world to sing...
> they are the ones that have propelled
> society forward like no others of the last 30 years.
Really? 30 Years? Name a dozen people that have propelled society
forward during that time by using an Apple product.
> They change things,
> they push the human race forward. Everyone agrees with that.
No they don't.
>
> But to present your "ideas as valid" with no basis is what is
questioned.
I've given all kinds of basis. I'm not the one coming in here with
nothing- that would be you.
>
> Apple users "know" what they do today, will be accepted by larger
> society in the future, but people still using windows or non
> ipods/iphones really aren't part of the picture since they don't
control
> how the future looks. They are the "followers" of Apple, the MS users,
> the people that don't make a difference during their lifetimes.
.....in perfect harmony.
>
> Simply put, they don't have any say over the destiny of these spaces.
> Apple users set all the rules WE all play by, and that's been true for
> decades. It's not going to change so why fight it? Why use a poorer
> quality device just to show you are uneducated? It doesn't make sense.
>
>> > I obviously bruised your ego,
>>
>> Far from it- it will be a very cold day in hell before the opinions
of
>> anyone on here abvout me come close to having any impact on me.
>
> Apple users don't use "opinions" they just use facts based on
"knowledge"
You have no knowledge. You are an uneducated troll and incapable of
providing any facts to support your outlandish claims. Your poorly
thought out suppositions and blatent lies simply prove that you are way
over your head here. You simply saying it doesn't make it valid. Yo
Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel 
