In article <y9d4pqnw28o.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> writes:
>
> > I'd be all for that, too. The iPhone certainly doesn't display it *all*
> > the time, but definitely way more than is necessary.
>
>
> This is weird. I'm assuming that you don't have an iPhone, seeing as
> how it hasn't been released yet, and apparently the software hasn't
> been finished yet. How do you know the status is displayed "way more
> than is necessary"?
Because I've seen the keynote and I've been to the Apple site. If you
haven't done both of those I'm not sure why you'd even be participating
in this discussion. I am definitely hoping what we're seeing is not
finished, because it needs to be addressed.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
> Doc O'Leary (droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com) wrote:
> : Are you really suggesting that the vast
> : majority of people are extremely interested to know whenever their
> : signal changes from 5 bars to 4, or from 4 to 5, or when the battery
> : goes from 100% to 90%, or when the time changes from 11:28 to 11:29?
>
> I'll chime in here - though to speak for myself, not the vast majority.
Is that you morphing, ZnU? Regardless, let me again pick apart why
you're either seeming to agree with me, or are misguided.
> 1. Signal strength - you bet. Aside from answering *can I send/receive
> calls*, it'll let me perhaps anticipate how good (fast?) a data rate I'll
> be getting. If in a rush, I might hold off until in an area with a
> stronger signal. As well, it's useful for comparing coverage with the
> (inevitable) competition.
If you wanted to refute my argument, you needed to explain why knowing
the signal strength was important when browsing your music collection.
You did not do that. So you do seem to agree with me that signal
strength only matters when you're interested in corresponding network
features, and even then only that it might be degraded.
> 2. Battery strength. You bet. That way I can compare battery use with
> activity. Might also remind me to turn Bluetooth off when I see the
> levels dropping on standby. A quick glance will also tell me if I should
> throw it in the charger for a bit, or if i'm good to go for the rest of
> the day.
With "standby" and "quick glance" you're essentially agreeing that a
constant reminder is unnecessary as you're *using* the phone's other
features. Do please go to:
and explain to me how that idle screen does not already meet your needs.
> 3. The time? Sure. I lose track of time on occasion. But that's just me
> ...
Again, using qualifiers like "on occasion" only supports my point. At
least ZnU took the angle, insane as it was, that 95% of his time was
spent looking at the status bar.
> I'm a person who prefers *not* to have to make a keystroke to summon
> routinely referred to or useful info.
Not this again . . .
Look, have you "no button presses!" people actually bothered to think
out the use cases of the situations you bring up? *Every* example
involves pressing a button, or is otherwise covered by simply removing
the iPhone from your pocket!
> I *like* the fact, for example, that
> the airport strength, battery status and time are constantly displayed at
> the top of my laptop's screen.
No, you don't. Like I said, you're simply used to it and it gives you
some comfort of familiarity. It is not the status that is interesting,
but the *change* in status. That can be given, when necessary, as an
overlay of decreasing transparency without rendering 5% of the screen
unusable.
> As an aside, I'd also say it's a tribute to the iPhone design and concept
> that, of all things, this status bar issue has become such a focus. As
> someone else suggested, perhaps (likely) it was something Cingular was
> insisting upon and Steve just decided that a battle over *that* was just
> not worth the effort.
Maybe so. There are certainly a number of features, like using the
music library for ring tones, that are speculated as being hampered by
the dysfunctional state of US cellular networks. I won't really comment
on those because they can't get beyond speculation at this point. The
interface, however, is prominently on display and thus more solid as a
feature to comment on.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
> In article <y9d4pqnw28o.fsf@hotel.math.ufl.edu>,
> William Mitchell <mitchell@math.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
> > Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> writes:
> >
> > > I'd be all for that, too. The iPhone certainly doesn't display it *all*
> > > the time, but definitely way more than is necessary.
> >
> >
> > This is weird. I'm assuming that you don't have an iPhone, seeing as
> > how it hasn't been released yet, and apparently the software hasn't
> > been finished yet. How do you know the status is displayed "way more
> > than is necessary"?
>
> Because I've seen the keynote and I've been to the Apple site. If you
> haven't done both of those I'm not sure why you'd even be participating
> in this discussion. I am definitely hoping what we're seeing is not
> finished, because it needs to be addressed.
LOL
--
Bill Mitchell
Dept of Mathematics, The University of Florida
PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105 mitchell@math.ufl.edu (352) 392-0281 x284
In article
<droleary.usenet-99D211.07360620012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Again, using qualifiers like "on occasion" only supports my point. At
> least ZnU took the angle, insane as it was, that 95% of his time was
> spent looking at the status bar.
I'm wondering why you believe that lying makes this discussion more
productive.
[snip]
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
In article <michelle-C638D5.23544518012007@news.east.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <znu-835FB5.00595119012007@individual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that since you're not going
> > to e.g. leave wherever you are because you don't have a good signal,
> > there's no reason why you should be interested in knowing whether you
> > have a good signal?
>
> I'm saying that if the phone is on your belt or in your purse, etc., it
> doesn't matter whether there's a status bar showing or not.
It does when you pull it out for a quick glance.
> Also, unless I have to make a call or am expecting an important call, I
> do not let signal strength dictate where I go or not go.
One wouldn't generally allow signal strength to radically change one's
plans, no. This doesn't mean there's no reason to generally be aware of
it.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
In article <michelle-4D73C6.10045021012007@news.east.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <znu-1F91BB.03583921012007@individual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > I'm saying that if the phone is on your belt or in your purse,
> > > etc., it doesn't matter whether there's a status bar showing or
> > > not.
> >
> > It does when you pull it out for a quick glance.
>
> And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check the
> signal strength? To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for
> that.
Ah, but some of us have given up time pieces in favor of the large
digital readout on the front of the phone. No watch band to wear out
and scar surfaces. No setting knob to wear through my pocket (when I
tried pocket watches).
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <znu-1F91BB.03583921012007@individual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I'm saying that if the phone is on your belt or in your purse,
>>> etc., it doesn't matter whether there's a status bar showing or
>>> not.
>> It does when you pull it out for a quick glance.
>
> And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check the
> signal strength? To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for
> that.
LOL, one of the biggest trends now is for people to not wear watches,
because they can glance at the display of their phones for the time.
The only necessary items that need to be on all the time on a phone are
the time of day, the battery level, and the signal strength.
In article <michelle-4D73C6.10045021012007@news.east.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <znu-1F91BB.03583921012007@individual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > I'm saying that if the phone is on your belt or in your purse,
> > > etc., it doesn't matter whether there's a status bar showing or
> > > not.
> >
> > It does when you pull it out for a quick glance.
>
> And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check the
> signal strength?
To see if one is in a location where calls can me made or received, of
course. You seem to think nobody would be interested in knowing that
unless they have specific plans to make or receive a call immediately,
but this is not the case. I've pointed this out several times and you
haven't responded to it.
> To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for that.
As I said a few days back, many people have stopped wearing watches in
favor of cell phones. When my last watch broke four or five years ago, I
just never bothered to get another one.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
ZnU wrote:
> In article <michelle-4D73C6.10045021012007@news.east.cox.net>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <znu-1F91BB.03583921012007@individual.net>,
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm saying that if the phone is on your belt or in your purse,
>>>> etc., it doesn't matter whether there's a status bar showing or
>>>> not.
>>> It does when you pull it out for a quick glance.
>> And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check the
>> signal strength?
>
> To see if one is in a location where calls can me made or received, of
> course.
This is a very common thing to do, especially if you're on a carrier
where the coverage is not so great in a lot of areas. If you're
expecting a call, you really want to be sure you stay in areas with
coverage.
In article <michelle-7D5DD4.12294421012007@news.east.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <znu-D081C2.13011721012007@individual.net>,
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check
> > > the signal strength?
> >
> > To see if one is in a location where calls can me made or received,
> > of course. You seem to think nobody would be interested in knowing
> > that unless they have specific plans to make or receive a call
> > immediately, but this is not the case. I've pointed this out several
> > times and you haven't responded to it.
>
> Yeah, unless I want to make a phone call or am expecting one, I have no
> interest in the signal strength. And if I want to make a call, I'm not
> going to just glance at the signal strength; I'm going to make the call
> or go somewhere where the strength is enough for me to make it.
>
> > > To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for that.
> >
> > As I said a few days back, many people have stopped wearing watches
> > in favor of cell phones. When my last watch broke four or five years
> > ago, I just never bothered to get another one.
>
> On my phone, the time of day is not on the status bar.
>
> As I said, this entire argument about the status bar seems silly and
> pointless to me.
I stopped wearing a watch too, in fact because the strap was irritating
my skin. When I infrequently need to know the time I look at my PDA. If
I don't have that with me I just guess.
In article <znu-F0C815.04520116012007@individual.net>,
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>In article <sehix-0CC477.18304715012007@news.speakeasy.net>,
> Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
>
>> In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>> > ADM has a *LOT* of political clout. With the increasing blurring of
>> > boundaries between government and the corporate world, this is true of
>> > many companies. A large percentage of US federal regulations are
>> > designed to benefit industries rather than citizens.
>>
>> Where have you been for the past century and a half?
>>
>> Well, not you *personally*, but you should get the notion.
>>
>> This sort of stuff was old when Nebuchadnezzar was a pup.
>
>I've always been entertained that blurring the boundaries between
>corporations and the government can be called either "communism" or
>"fasism" and that these ideologies are treated as being polar opposites,
>despite the fact that essentially nothing differs in practice except the
>rhetoric.
Communism is when the government (usually calling themselves
"revolutionaries") shoots the corporate heads and puts cronies of
government leaders in charge of the industries, which are now
officially government controlled.
Fascism is similar, except that
1) The current corporate heads are given a chance to play along and
become cronies themselves, rather than being shot regardless. The
government, in fact, probably is largely made up of people who ran or run large
corporations.
2) The industries remain privately controlled, though in name only.
I think the main difference in practice is industry runs more poorly
under communism; at least the cronies in fascism know how to run a
company.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
In article <invalid-7CA872.15015716012007@news-50.dca.giganews.com>,
Madwen <invalid@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <45abb9b8$0$68997$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Not just them, the government is also protecting the HFCS producers,
>> > because the artificially high sugar prices cause the soft drink
>> > makers to use HFCS. ADM has a lot of political clout.
>>
>> ADM has a *LOT* of political clout. With the increasing blurring of
>> boundaries between government and the corporate world, this is true of
>> many companies. A large percentage of US federal regulations are
>> designed to benefit industries rather than citizens.
>
>I would note that this is a recent phenomenon, for the most part,
Nope. ADM has been doing its bit for decades.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
In article <6JednR1orL3hdy7YnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <znu-F0C815.04520116012007@individual.net>, ZnU
> <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <sehix-0CC477.18304715012007@news.speakeasy.net>,
> > Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <timmcn-946C68.19491815012007@news.iphouse.com>,
> >> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > ADM has a *LOT* of political clout. With the increasing
> >> > blurring of boundaries between government and the corporate
> >> > world, this is true of many companies. A large percentage of US
> >> > federal regulations are designed to benefit industries rather
> >> > than citizens.
> >>
> >> Where have you been for the past century and a half?
> >>
> >> Well, not you *personally*, but you should get the notion.
> >>
> >> This sort of stuff was old when Nebuchadnezzar was a pup.
> >
> >I've always been entertained that blurring the boundaries between
> >corporations and the government can be called either "communism" or
> >"fasism" and that these ideologies are treated as being polar
> >opposites, despite the fact that essentially nothing differs in
> >practice except the rhetoric.
>
> Communism is when the government (usually calling themselves
> "revolutionaries") shoots the corporate heads and puts cronies of
> government leaders in charge of the industries, which are now
> officially government controlled.
>
> Fascism is similar, except that
>
> 1) The current corporate heads are given a chance to play along and
> become cronies themselves, rather than being shot regardless. The
> government, in fact, probably is largely made up of people who ran or
> run large corporations.
>
> 2) The industries remain privately controlled, though in name only.
Yes, exactly. There's essentially no practical difference between the
government control industry and industry controlling the government; in
both cases, the problem is that the two largest centers of power in the
society are controlled by a single group of people.
> I think the main difference in practice is industry runs more poorly
> under communism; at least the cronies in fascism know how to run a
> company.
If you look at some of the horrible inefficiencies of companies which
have close ties with the government (defense contractors, etc.), there's
quite a remarkable similarity to the inefficiencies Soviet communism
produced.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
Tim Streater wrote:
> I stopped wearing a watch too, in fact because the strap was irritating
> my skin. When I infrequently need to know the time I look at my PDA. If
> I don't have that with me I just guess.
Seven or more times out of ten, when someone asks me what time it is, I
glance around and find a clock nearby. It's only occasionally that
I have to look at my cellphone or pager or PDA.
--
Wes Groleau
People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
-- Peg Bracken
In article <michelle-5D0B05.12312221012007@news.east.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <45b3ac4a$0$69038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check
> > >> the signal strength?
> > >
> > > To see if one is in a location where calls can me made or received,
> > > of course.
> >
> > This is a very common thing to do, especially if you're on a carrier
> > where the coverage is not so great in a lot of areas. If you're
> > expecting a call, you really want to be sure you stay in areas with
> > coverage.
>
> Agreed, which is the reason I don't see the point of a "quick glance";
> one checks the status bar and then uses it to move to somewhere where
> the signal strength is strong enough. Just glancing at it and putting
> the phone away does nothing.
I think the disconnect here is that you view "expecting a call" as a
sort of binary thing -- either you're expecting (or need to make) a call
important enough that you'd move to another area to get service, or you
don't care at all whether you can make or receive calls.
Most of the time, I'm in a gray area between those two extremes. I'm not
expecting any *specific* call, but it's likely, based on the number of
calls I get in a day, that *someone* will try to call me during, say, a
given three hour period in which I'll be at a certain location, and I'm
interested in knowing whether those calls will go through. Or I might
not want to make a call right away, but I might want to know if I have
the *option* of making a call from that location later.
You might say there's no reason I should care if I'm not planning to
modify my actions based on what I find, but I *do* care, and I don't
think I'm alone.
It's somewhat analogous to the concept of "presence" in instant
messaging. IM software tells you which of your buddies are online as
soon as you sign on, before you attempt to contact anyone. Using the
logic you're using in this sub-thread, being aware of whether a person
is online is not something worth knowing until you actually want to
contact that person, therefore presence is a useless feature in IM
software. I think the vast majority of IM software users would disagree
with this.
People like to know what their options are in a given situation even if
they don't necessarily intend to exercise them immediately.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:36:41 -0600, Wes Groleau wrote
(in article <tPCrh.1769$R76.72@trnddc05>):
> Hey, I'm a geek, but I wholeheartedly agree with your wife.
> I absolutely cannot afford the inefficiency of using a cell-phone
> to surf the web. It's SO inefficient I wouldn't like it if I did
> have enough free time.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:22:13 -0600, Todd Allcock wrote
(in article <45afbab8$0$4742$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>):
> I doubt you'll see any data discounting- they'll expect this phone to
> drive data sales. It's a $500 phone! "If you can afford an iPhone, you
> can afford the data..." BMW doesn't discount the optional floor mats;
> Cingular isnt going to mark down the data. Besides, they'd have the rest
> of their customer base to answer to- why should an iPhone customer get
> data for half of what a Nokia smartphone user pays, etc.
Well, just so they allow you to use MediaNet pricing - and not force you to
use that PDA plan.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:04:24 -0600, Jochem Huhmann wrote
(in article <m28xg0mqp3.fsf@marvin.revier.com>):
> Not when you can't buy it without an expensive cellular plan...
Is that sure now?
I would've expected that iPhone would fall under MediaNet - else why limit it
to Edge?
> For me, it looks as if the thing sucks as a phone anyway. It's too large
> and too heavy and when you use any of the additional features (WiFi,
> video) the battery will hardly last for a typical day. No problem for a
> toy but with the iPhone you'll also have your mobile phone dead then.
Remeber that battery life was given as a media device - that is, playing
music or video (with the display active) and the thing fully awake. If you're
going to be away from a charger for a while, you just don't do those battery
eating activities <duh!>.
I'd imagine standby times could be quite long considering how long you can
run with media active.
I'd also imagine that there will be quite a cottage industry for chargers of
various sorts - after all, if you own an iPhone you'll want to use those
power-hungry media playing functions (and that gorgeous screen).
My wife - definitely NOT a geek - saw the intro and wants one. She didn't
want the original iPod (5G despite having received it as a gift FWIW.
I'm pretty sure this is going to be one of those devices whose sum is greater
than it's individual components. It seems to be highly usable, and though I
may have the ability to do many of the same things on my current Symbian
phone (Nokia 6682), I don't. I'm sure I knew how to some of these things -
say a conference call - a month after I'd bought it while the manual was
still fresh in my mind, but that knowledge has long since evaporated. While
I'm talking I don't screw around with other functions because I might do
something unexpected and accidently hang up or worse put the person on hold
or mute and not know how to recover from the mis-key.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:49:06 -0600, Tom Reestman wrote
(in article <Xns98BB63E07B27Dtreestmanyahoocom@69.28.173.184>) :
> I think eventually you'll find apps (some Apple, some not), on the iTunes
> store for purchase on the phone. I hope it doesn't become a "free-for-
> all", but I hope Apple doesn't keep thing too tight, either. For now, I
> think Apple's concentrating on getting any kinks worked out before
> putting additional apps on.
Additional apps?
I don't thing iPhone's built-in apps are done yet - just enough of it to
submit to the FCC for certification (the communications pieces).
Notice that Jobs didn't touch on the calendar app, and I'm sure there will be
other widgits.
This thing won't have to be Golden Master for another six months yet.
Verne Arase (VerneA@pobox.com) got drunk after typing this drivel in
news:0001HW.C1DBE878003B424AF0203648@news.giganews .com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:49:06 -0600, Tom Reestman wrote
> (in article <Xns98BB63E07B27Dtreestmanyahoocom@69.28.173.184>) :
>
>> I think eventually you'll find apps (some Apple, some not), on the
>> iTunes store for purchase on the phone. I hope it doesn't become a
>> "free-for- all", but I hope Apple doesn't keep thing too tight,
>> either. For now, I think Apple's concentrating on getting any kinks
>> worked out before putting additional apps on.
>
> Additional apps?
>
> I don't thing iPhone's built-in apps are done yet - just enough of it
> to submit to the FCC for certification (the communications pieces).
>
> Notice that Jobs didn't touch on the calendar app, and I'm sure there
> will be other widgits.
>
> This thing won't have to be Golden Master for another six months yet.
>
>
True, and the "additional apps" I refer to are those above and beyond
what it ships with, not just what we know now.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:30:52 -0600, Verne Arase wrote
(in article
<0001HW.C1DBDAAC00380685F0203648@news.giganews.com >):
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:36:41 -0600, Wes Groleau wrote
> (in article <tPCrh.1769$R76.72@trnddc05>):
>
>> Hey, I'm a geek, but I wholeheartedly agree with your wife.
>> I absolutely cannot afford the inefficiency of using a cell-phone
>> to surf the web. It's SO inefficient I wouldn't like it if I did
>> have enough free time.
>
> Not to mention that WAP browsing really sucks.
That's true, WAP browsing does suck. That's why the iPhone has
a real web browser instead.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:23:00 GMT, Lefty Bigfoot <nunya@busyness.info>
wrote in <0001HW.C1DC81A200EBBFE8F0203648@news.verizon.net> :
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:30:52 -0600, Verne Arase wrote
>(in article
><0001HW.C1DBDAAC00380685F0203648@news.giganews.co m>):
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:36:41 -0600, Wes Groleau wrote
>> (in article <tPCrh.1769$R76.72@trnddc05>):
>>
>>> Hey, I'm a geek, but I wholeheartedly agree with your wife.
>>> I absolutely cannot afford the inefficiency of using a cell-phone
>>> to surf the web. It's SO inefficient I wouldn't like it if I did
>>> have enough free time.
>>
>> Not to mention that WAP browsing really sucks.
>
>That's true, WAP browsing does suck.
WAP browsing actually work quite well through the Google WAP proxy,
which converts regular HTTP web pages into WAP on the fly.
>That's why the iPhone has
>a real web browser instead.
Opera Mini is free, and works a treat on a great many regular cell
phones.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>> To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for that.
>
>As I said a few days back, many people have stopped wearing watches in
>favor of cell phones. ...
Many? Try a few. Or do you have any real data to back that up?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 09:52:18 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <45b3a854$0$68987$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <znu-1F91BB.03583921012007@individual.net>,
>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm saying that if the phone is on your belt or in your purse,
>>>> etc., it doesn't matter whether there's a status bar showing or
>>>> not.
>>> It does when you pull it out for a quick glance.
>>
>> And why would one pull out the phone for a quick glance to check the
>> signal strength? To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for
>> that.
>
>LOL, one of the biggest trends now is for people to not wear watches,
>because they can glance at the display of their phones for the time.
Citation? Or did you just make that up too?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
> >LOL, one of the biggest trends now is for people to not wear watches,
> >because they can glance at the display of their phones for the time.
>
> Citation? Or did you just make that up too?
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:18:09 -0700, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in <epg56h$qug$2@aioe.org>:
>At 27 Jan 2007 16:23:12 +0000 John Navas wrote:
>
>> >LOL, one of the biggest trends now is for people to not wear watches,
>> >because they can glance at the display of their phones for the time.
>>
>> Citation? Or did you just make that up too?
>
>Google is your friend?
In article <71vmr2tf7njg06ubhup0k4mk71fril9mok@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:01:17 -0500, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in
> <znu-D081C2.13011721012007@individual.net>:
>
> >In article <michelle-4D73C6.10045021012007@news.east.cox.net>,
> > Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> >> To check the time, yes, but I have a wristwatch for that.
> >
> >As I said a few days back, many people have stopped wearing watches in
> >favor of cell phones. ...
>
> Many? Try a few. Or do you have any real data to back that up?
A few have, but the luxury watch market has never done better. More
high-end watches sold than ever before ($200+)
"A study by marketing firm Packaged Facts shows clock and wristwatch
sales fell 5.1 percent last year, after four previous years of glacial
growth or decline.
Cellular phone sales, meanwhile, are robust, with nearly 220 million
wireless numbers in the U.S. market and thousands being sold daily.
"Nothing is more basic to modern life than having the time ready at
hand," wrote authors of "Watches and Clocks in the U.S.," citing the
proliferation of clocks on microwaves, cable boxes, as well as personal
and laptop computers. "Indeed, that is precisely the problem for the
timepiece industry."
The decline in watches can be directly attributed to the cellular phone,
the report states, though a clock expert says it predates that.
"It goes back a ways," said Jim Bland, marketing director for the
National Association of Watch And Clock Collectors. "Before cellular
phones, people had pagers and those had an LCD readout that had a clock
on it."
Well, to be fair, the subject really doesn't interest me, except,
perhaps, anecdotally; (I stopped wearing a watch about five years ago
because I always carry a phone) so I didn't put a lot of effort into it!
I just picked the first two relevant articles I pulled up from a Google
search for "wrist watch sales trend." I'm sure a Google afficionado like
yourself could craft a more accurate search to get better data. There
seems to be enough out there to show the trend, for what it's worth.
> >LOL, one of the biggest trends now is for people to not wear watches,
> >because they can glance at the display of their phones for the time.
>
> Citation? Or did you just make that up too?
Last night a woman I know, who wasn't wearing a watch, took out her cell
phone to see what time it was. I'm sure the previous poster didn't make
this up as I witnessed it.
--
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone 
despite having received it as a gift FWIW.
Linear Mode
