Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.cingular
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:15 AM
EGV
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...575737,00.html
Tuesday, Jan. 09, 2007
Apple's New Calling: The iPhone
By Lev Grossman

If you've ever wondered how it works, this is how it works: I don't
call Steve, Steve calls me. Or more accurately, someone in Steve
Jobs's office calls someone in my office—someone at a much higher pay
grade —to say that he has something cool. I then fly to the
metastasized strip mall called Cupertino, Calif., where Apple lives,
sign some legal confidentiality stuff and am escorted to a conference
room that contains Jobs, some associates, and some lumps concealed
under some black towels. I stare at what was under the towels.
Everybody else stares at me.

This is how Apple, and nobody else, introduces new products to the
press. It can be awkward, because Jobs is high-strung and he expects
you to be impressed. I was, fortunately, and with good reason. Apple's
new iPhone could do to the cell phone market what the iPod did to the
portable music player market: crush it pitilessly beneath the weight
of its own superiority. This is unfortunate for anybody else who makes
cell phones, but it's good news for those of us who use them.

It's also good news for Jobs. Apple has had some explaining to do
lately about backdated stock options it issued to Jobs and some other
senior Apple executives. An internal investigation has cleared Jobs,
but a federal investigation and a shareholder lawsuit are still going
forward.

Sure, backdating options is common in Silicon Valley, but the essence
of Apple's identity is that it's an uncorporate corporation: a glossy
white iPod-colored company, the kind that doesn't get mixed up in this
kind of thing. When Jobs calls the iPhone "the most important product
Apple has ever announced, with the possible exception of the Apple II
and the Macintosh," he means, technologically. But now is not a
terrible time to be hitting a home run.

The iPhone developed the way a lot of cool things do: with a false
start. A few years ago Jobs noticed how many development dollars were
being spent—particularly in the greater Seattle metropolitan area—on
what are called tablet PCs: flat, portable computers that work with a
touchscreen instead of a mouse and keyboard. Jobs, being Jobs, figured
he could do better, so he had Apple engineers noodle around with a
tablet PC. When they showed him the touchscreen they came up with, he
got excited. So excited he forgot all about tablet computers.

Jobs had just led Apple on a triumphant rampage through a new market
sector, portable music players, and he was looking around for more
technology to conquer. Cell phones are perfect because even Grandma
has one: consumers bought nearly a billion of them last year. Break
off just 1% of that and you can buy yourself a lot of black
turtlenecks. Cell phones do all kinds of stuff—calling, text
messaging, Web browsing, contact management, music playback, photos
and video—but they do it very badly, by forcing you to press lots of
tiny buttons, navigate diverse heterogeneous interfaces and squint at
a tiny screen. "Everybody hates their phone," Jobs says, "and that's
not a good thing. And there's an opportunity there." To Jobs's
perfectionist eyes, phones are broken. Jobs likes things that are
broken. It means he can make something that isn't and sell it to you
for a premium price.

That was why, two and a half years ago, Jobs sicced his wrecking crew
of designers and engineers on the cell phone as we know and hate it.
They began by melting the face off a video iPod. No clickwheel, no
keypad. They sheared off the entire front and replaced it with a huge,
bright, vivid screen—that touchscreen Jobs got so excited about a few
paragraphs ago. When you need to dial, it shows you a keypad; when you
need other buttons, the screen serves them up. When you want to watch
a video, the buttons disappear. Suddenly, the interface isn't fixed
and rigid, it's fluid and molten. Software replaces hardware.

Into that iPod they stuffed a working version of Apple's operating
system, OS X, so the phone could handle real, non-toy applications
like Web browsers and e-mail clients. They put in a cell antenna, plus
two more antennas for WiFi and Bluetooth; plus a bunch of sensors, so
the phone knows how bright its screen should be, and whether it should
display vertically or horizontally, and when it should turn off the
touchscreen so you don't accidentally operate it with your ear.

Then Jonathan Ive, Apple's head of design, the man who shaped the iMac
and the iPod, squashed the case to less than half an inch thick, and
widened it to what looks like a bar of expensive chocolate wrapped in
aluminum and stainless steel. The iPhone is a typical piece of Ive
design: an austere, abstract, platonic-looking form that somehow also
manages to feel warm and organic and ergonomic. Unlike my phone. He
picks it up and points out four little nubbins on the back. "Your
phone's got feet on," he says, not unkindly. "Why would anybody put
feet on a phone?" Ive has the answer, of course: "It raises the
speaker on the back off the table. But the right solution is to put
the speaker in the right place in the first place. That's why our
speaker isn't on the bottom, so you can have it on the table, and you
don't need feet." Sure enough, no feet toe the iPhone's smooth lines.

All right, so it's pretty. Now pick it up and make a call. A big
friendly icon appears on that huge screen. Say a second call comes in
while you're talking. Another icon appears. Tap that second icon and
you switch to the second call. Tap the big "merge calls" icon and
you've got a three-way conference call. Pleasantly simple.

Another example: voicemail. Until now you've had to grope through your
v-mail by ear, blindly, like an eyeless cave-creature. On the iPhone
you see all your messages laid out visually, onscreen, labeled by
caller. If you want to hear one, you touch it. Done. Now try a text
message: Instead of jumbling them all together in your in-box, iPhone
arranges your texts by recipient, as threaded conversations made of
little jewel-like bubbles. And instead of "typing" on a four-by-four
number keypad, you get a full, usable QWERTY keyboard. You will never
again have to hit the 7 key four times to type a letter S.

Now forget about phone calls. Look at the video, which is impressively
crisp and plays on a screen larger than the video iPod's. This is the
first time the hype about "rich media" on a phone has actually looked
plausible. Look at the e-mail client, which handles attachments,
in-line images, HTML e-mails as adroitly as a desktop client. Look at
the Web browser, a modified version of Safari that displays actual Web
pages, not a teensy crunched-down version of the Web. There's a Google
map application that's almost worth the price of admission on its own.
Weaknesses? Absolutely. You can't download songs directly onto it from
the iTunes store, you have to export them from a computer. And even
though it's got WiFi and Bluetooth on it, you can't sync iPhone with a
computer wirelessly. And there should be games on it. And you're
required to use it as a phone—you can't use it without signing up for
cellular service. Boo.

The iPhone breaks two basic axioms of consumer technology. One, when
you take an application and put it on a phone, that application must
be reduced to a crippled and annoying version of itself. Two, when you
take two devices—such as an iPod and a phone—and squish them into one,
both devices must necessarily become lamer versions of themselves. The
iPhone is a phone, an iPod, and a mini-Internet computer all at once,
and contrary to Newton—who knew a thing or two about apples—they all
occupy the same space at the same time, but without taking a hit in
performance. In a way iPhone is the wrong name for it. It's a handheld
computing platform that just happens to contain a phone.

Why is Apple able to do things most other companies can't? Partly by
charging for it: The iPhone will cost $499 for a 4GB model, $599 for
8GB, which makes it expensive, but not a luxury item. And partly
because the company has highly diverse talent who are good at
hardware, software, industrial design and Internet services. Most
companies just do one or two things well.

Unlike most competitors, Apple also places an inordinate emphasis on
interface design. It sweats the cosmetic details that don't seem very
important until you really sweat them. "I actually have a
photographer's loupe that I use to look to make sure every pixel is
right," says Scott Forstall, Apple's vice-president of Platform
Experience (whatever that is). "We will argue over literally a single
pixel." As a result, when you swipe your finger across the screen to
unlock the iPhone, you're not just accessing a system of nested menus,
you're entering a tiny universe, where data exist as bouncy, gemlike,
animated objects that behave according to consistent rules of virtual
physics. Because there's no intermediary input device—like a mouse or
a keyboard—there's a powerful illusion that you're physically handling
data with your fingers. You can pinch an image with two fingers and
make it smaller.

To witness the iPhone launch from behind the curtain (or under the
towel) is to see the controlling hand of Steve Jobs, for whom this is
an almost mystically significant year. He's 52 years old. It's been 30
years since he founded Apple (with Stephen Wozniak), and 10 since he
returned there after having been fired. In that decade Apple's stock
has gone up more than 1,000%. Neither age nor success (nor cancer
surgery in 2004) have significantly mellowed him, though some of the
silver in his beard is creeping into his hair. All technologists
believe their products are better than other people's, or at least
they say they do, but Jobs believes it a little more than most. In the
hours we spent talking about the iPhone, Jobs trash-talked the Treo,
the BlackJack, the Sony PSP and the Sony Mylo ("just garbage compared
to this"), Windows Vista ("It's just a copy of an old version of Mac
OSX") and of course Microsoft's would-be iPod killer, Zune.

Jobs's zealousness about product development— and enforcing his
personal vision—remains as relentless as ever. He keeps Apple's
management structure unusually flat for a 20,000-person company, so he
can see what's happening at ground level. There is just one committee
in the whole of Apple, to establish prices. I can't think of a
comparable company that does no—zero—market research with its
customers before releasing a product. Ironically, Jobs's personal
style could not be more at odds with the brand he has created. If the
motto for Apple's consumers is "think different," the motto for Apple
employees is "think like Steve."

The same goes for Apple's partners. The last time Apple experimented
with a phone, the largely unsuccessful ROKR, Jobs let Motorola make
it, an unsatisfying experiment. "What we learned was that we wouldn't
be satisfied with glomming iTunes onto a regular phone," Jobs says.
"We realized through that experience that for us to be happy, for us
to be proud, we were going to have to do it all."

Apple's arrogance can inspire resentment, which is one reason for some
of the glee over Jobs's stock options woes: taking pleasure in seeing
a special person knocked down a peg is a great American pastime. (Jobs
declines to talk about the options issue.) But there's no point in
pretending that Jobs isn't special. A college dropout, whose
biological parents gave him up for adoption, Jobs has presided over
four major game-changing product launches: the Apple II, the
Macintosh, the iPod, and the iPhone; five if you count the release of
Pixar's Toy Story, which I'm inclined to. He's like Willy Wonka and
Harry Potter rolled up into one.

That doesn't mean Apple can operate beyond the boundaries of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, but the iPhone wouldn't have
happened without Apple's "we're special" attitude. One reason there's
limited innovation in cell phones generally is that the cell carriers
have stiff guidelines that the manufacturers have to follow. They
demand that all their handsets work the same way. "A lot of times, to
be honest, there's some hubris, where they think they know better,"
Jobs says. "They dictate what's on the phone. That just wouldn't work
for us, because we want to innovate. Unless we could do that, it
wasn't worth doing." Jobs demanded special treatment from his phone
service partner, Cingular, and he got it. He even forced Cingular to
re-engineer its infrastructure to handle the iPhone's unique voicemail
scheme. "They broke all their typical process rules to make it
happen," says Tony Fadell, who heads Apple's iPod division. "They were
infected by this product, and they were like, we've gotta do this!"

Now that the precedent has been set, it'll be interesting to see if
other cell phone makers start demanding Apple-style treatment from
wireless carriers. It'll also be worth watching to see how successful
they'll be in knocking off the iPhone's all-screen form factor, which
will be very difficult without Apple's touchscreen technology. Apple
has filed for around 200 patents associated with the iPhone, building
an imposing legal wall. Considering the size of the market, the stakes
are high. The phone market is, of course, divided into armed camps by
carrier, and so far the iPhone is exclusive with Cingular. Apple has
sold 100 million iPods worldwide, but Cingular has only 58 million
customers. Apple expects to launch the iPhone abroad in the fourth
quarter of this year.

It's not quite right to call the iPhone revolutionary. It won't create
a new market, or change the entertainment industry, the way the iPod
did. When you get right down to it, the device doesn't even have that
many new features—it's not like Jobs invented voicemail, or text
messaging, or conference calling, or mobile Web browsing. He just
noticed that they were broken, and he fixed them.

But that's important. When our tools don't work, we tend to blame
ourselves, for being too stupid or not reading the manual or having
too-fat fingers. "I think there's almost a belligerence—people are
frustrated with their manufactured environment," says Ive. "We tend to
assume the problem is with us, and not with the products we're trying
to use." In other words, when our tools are broken, we feel broken.
And when somebody fixes one, we feel a tiny bit more whole.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:43 AM
Quiet Desperation
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <ljt8q21i4vkojsadmup5ct90c34mpb4fo4@4ax.com>,
EGV <EGV@a34w.com> wrote:

> I was, fortunately, and with good reason.


I luv me some Mac and iPod, but I had no interest in the iPhone. I
didn't think Apple could do anything with the cell phone I would carre
about.

Until today.

Frak me, but it's almost a Mac Mini in my pocket. I read somewhere it's
motion sensitive like the Wii controller, and to zoom in on the web
browser you just squeeze the side. I have not seen such a sweet gadget
since... I dunno when.

And my current Sprint contract *just* ended.

The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.

Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:54 AM
Jolly Roger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

On 2007-01-09 23:43:26 -0600, Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> said:

> The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
> camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.


So don't tell them it has a phone in it - geez! : )

--
JR


Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 05:12 AM
Mij Adyaw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
technically superior CDMA.

"Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@null.org> wrote in message
news:2007010923544085301-jollyroger@nullorg...
> On 2007-01-09 23:43:26 -0600, Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> said:
>
>> The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
>> camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.

>
> So don't tell them it has a phone in it - geez! : )
>
> --
> JR
>




Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 08:30 AM
Bucky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
> technically superior CDMA.


not really. GSM is the most popular mobile technology worldwide. Many
decisions are not based on what is technically superior.


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 12:17 PM
Tim McNamara
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:

> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.


Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
partnering with Apple.

But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 12:39 PM
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
wrote:

>Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on America's
>Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than the
>technically superior CDMA.
>



Thanks for the TROLL .

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 12:40 PM
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.

>
>Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
>partnering with Apple.
>
>But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.



First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
capability,
secondly Sprint always comes in worse, whther its
J.D. Power, the Yankee Group, or Consumer Reports.

Pick a year 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003;

the results are the same. Sprint is worst.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 01:01 PM
Calum
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Quiet Desperation wrote:
> In article <ljt8q21i4vkojsadmup5ct90c34mpb4fo4@4ax.com>,
> EGV <EGV@a34w.com> wrote:
>
>> I was, fortunately, and with good reason.

>
> I luv me some Mac and iPod, but I had no interest in the iPhone. I
> didn't think Apple could do anything with the cell phone I would carre
> about.


I still don't. Just give me the widescreen iPod without all that other
crap

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 01:41 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
>> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
>>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.

>> Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
>> partnering with Apple.
>>
>> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.

>
>
> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> capability,


Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.

Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
revenue stream to Apple.

The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.

The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.

Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 02:07 PM
karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
>>> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
>>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
>>>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
>>> Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
>>> partnering with Apple.
>>>
>>> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>>> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.

>>
>>
>> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
>> capability,

>
>Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
>consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.


Only if you include the Analog coverage.


>
>Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
>they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
>Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
>revenue stream to Apple.


No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to
design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide
random access voice mail.

>
>The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
>the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
>of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
>insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.


The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.

>
>The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
>the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
>or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.


So you're a Verizon shill ?

You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.

http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/te...er&oref=slogin

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._keyboard.html



A better ipod.
A better "Blackberry" type phone
A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
A better UI.
A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
case presses those buttons.

And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
running Apple's OS X.



Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 02:24 PM
P.Schuman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone


<karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vnv9q2hkqi4v7va2bqmiicc8fhml2jvfl9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> >>> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> >>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
> >>>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
> >>> Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
> >>> partnering with Apple.
> >>>
> >>> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
> >>> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
> >>
> >>
> >> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> >> capability,

> >
> >Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
> >consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.

>
> Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>
>
> >
> >Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
> >they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
> >Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
> >revenue stream to Apple.

>
> No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to
> design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide
> random access voice mail.
>
> >
> >The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
> >the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
> >of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
> >insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.

>
> The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.
>
> >
> >The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
> >the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
> >or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.

>
> So you're a Verizon shill ?
>
> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.
>
> http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html
>
>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/te...=todayspaper&o
ref=slogin
>
>

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._iphone_and_li
fe_without_a_keyboard.html
>
>
>
> A better ipod.
> A better "Blackberry" type phone
> A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
> A better UI.
> A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
> case presses those buttons.
>
> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
> running Apple's OS X.
>
>




Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:18 PM
Mij Adyaw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you will
find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent roaming
capability. The only thing that Sprint lacks in customer service.

<karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:15r9q2da2plr8l2eps1sb7gdsn1agdqmrd@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
>> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
>>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.

>>
>>Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
>>partnering with Apple.
>>
>>But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>>gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.

>
>
> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> capability,
> secondly Sprint always comes in worse, whther its
> J.D. Power, the Yankee Group, or Consumer Reports.
>
> Pick a year 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003;
>
> the results are the same. Sprint is worst.




Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:19 PM
Mij Adyaw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

You're welcome. Anytime :-)

<karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news3r9q2hknvk7nnv0okhidiv9fg7mr9jumh@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
>>America's
>>Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather than
>>the
>>technically superior CDMA.
>>

>
>
> Thanks for the TROLL .




Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:19 PM
SMS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
>> consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.

>
> Only if you include the Analog coverage.


Unlikely. Most Verizon handsets no longer include AMPS, yet Verizon
still beat Cingular in every metro area in the country, in many by huge
margins.

But yes, the analog coverage is a plus. I was roaming onto Cingular's
analog network two weeks ago, in an area with no digital coverage by any
carrier. Ironic to be using Cingular's network, with a Verizon phone, in
an area where 95%+ of Cingular's customers could not use Cingular's
network, and had no coverage.

Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 03:54 PM
Reginald Dwight
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <nl8ph.21069$GD4.10340@newsfe13.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:

> Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you will
> find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent roaming
> capability.


Based on what? The area YOU live in? Have you literally gone and sampled
coverage across the entire country?

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 04:59 PM
BreadWithSpam@fractious.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
> > Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> > America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
> > GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.


> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.


As I posted elsewhere, GSM makes pretty good sense for this phone
and for Apple. But I won't do business with Cingular. Their
network coverage has been somewhat spotty for me, and their
customer service (and billing) has been a nightmare. T-Mobile's
coverage has been better where I need it to be, and they
have been a pleasure to work with.

I suspect that part of Apple's failure with the ROKR was
the tie-in to Cingular, too.

But it seems likely that a non-cell-phone version of this
device will have to be in the works, too.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Kurt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <yobk5zubw5m.fsf@panix3.panix.com>,
BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
> > In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> > "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> > > America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
> > > GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.

>
> > But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
> > gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.

>
> As I posted elsewhere, GSM makes pretty good sense for this phone
> and for Apple. But I won't do business with Cingular. Their
> network coverage has been somewhat spotty for me, and their
> customer service (and billing) has been a nightmare. T-Mobile's
> coverage has been better where I need it to be, and they
> have been a pleasure to work with.
>
> I suspect that part of Apple's failure with the ROKR was
> the tie-in to Cingular, too.
>

And Motorola made and designed the phone, not Apple.

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

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 06:37 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

At 09 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800 Mij Adyaw wrote:
> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on

America's
> Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather

than the
> technically superior CDMA.


They didn't choose GSM, per se, they chose to partner with a _carrier_
who happens to use GSM.

I expect AT&T (what Cingular will be called by the time anyone is able to
buy one) saw the iPhone as an excellent opportunity to reinvent their
image while launching America's Most Renamed Network.

Can you really believe that Verizon would sell a phone that the
manufacturer wouldn't let them cripple? I'm amazed Apple got any
American carrier to cater to them. I half expected Apple to launch their
own MVNO for the phone (a la Amp'd or Disney) just to avoid having to
work with a carrier over design and pricing issues.

Anybody think Apple's going to let AT&T silkscreen a blue globe on the
back? ;-)


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 08:28 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

At 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800 SMS wrote:

> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's
> coverage is consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region
> of the country.


Where Cingular was one of the incumbent 800MHz carriers, like in the NE,
SE and Midwest they hold their own quite well. I was never disappointed
with Cingular coverage in the 10 years I used them (on TDMA, with the old
ATTWS as a roaming partner) throughout t
e Midwest and Northeast.

> Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units
> worldwide, so they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck
> with Cingular.


I think the corporate mindset had a lot to do with it as well- I can't
see Verizon rolling over to Apple's design demands and requirements to
the extent Cingular (or Sprint) would be willing to (can you picture the
ads? "iPhone- with VCast!" ;-)

> Also, Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want
> to give up that revenue stream to Apple.


Agreed, but I think they'd have made an exception for the iPhone- I
suspect there were bigger points they were unwilling to conceed.


> The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially
> given the lack of 3G capability in the first model.


Agree. IMHO, Apple is very form (including ease-of-use) over substance-
iPods aren't the best spec'd MP3 players out there, but they've got the
style and ergonomics down better than everyone else. I suspect the same
will be true of the iPhone- browsing the web on a good capable browser,
even at EDGE speed, on a large, gorgeous screen, will be a more
satisfying experience than EVDO on, say, a a WinMo 5 device, even though
EVDO downloads that "Sorry, your browser doesn't support Java or Frames"
error message so much faster than EDGE can! ;-)

> They should sell a version of it with no phone service, but with an
> ExpressCard slot so users can insert a 3G card from whatever
> carrier they want.


That won't happen unless the Express Card could be made white, embossed
with a mirror-like shine and not extend from the device. Hell, they
won't put flash memory slots on an iPod Nano, you think they'll let
people stick ugly grey cards with flashing LEDs in unapproved colors that
hang out of their pretty phone? ;-)


> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy
> one for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then
> Apple will have a winner.


I suspect the marketing will parallel the iPod- keep them expensive and
90% perfect for the first generation, to make it an object of desire.
Then improve them for 2nd gen; add the obvious missing features (like
3G), offer more colors, and reduce the depth and width 10% to ensure
you'll need new docking accessories and cases for the upgraded model! ;-)

Like the iPod, it'll be at hit right away even overpriced, then it will
be a HUGE hit at the price drop, when the knockoffs show up, and everyone
copies the full screen design with far clunkier UIs, then eventually
it'll be ubiquitous when Apple releases the stripped-down iPhone Nano,
with smaller screen, and the much less expensive, displayless
iPhone Shuffle, that can only dial people at random from your phone
book at the touch of a button... ;-)

Then, maybe 3 or 4 years from now, Motorola will have a hit with a
groundbreaking design: a phone with a physical, tactile keypad made of
little rubber buttons laid out in a 3x4 grid that they'll call the
KYPD...



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 08:30 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

At 10 Jan 2007 15:07:11 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:


> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews...
>


Good reviews won't make a $500 phone more attractive to those not willing
to spend half a grand on a phone. It will certainly be a success, but
not a RAZR-like success, at least not at first.

>
> A better ipod.
> A better "Blackberry" type phone
> A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
> A better UI.
> A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
> case presses those buttons.


All true, perhaps, but Toyota sells more Camrys than Rolls Royce sells
anything.

>
> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
> running Apple's OS X.


So how long will it take for MS to counter with their "Fune" running a
mobile version of Vista? ;-)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 08:47 PM
Doc O'Leary
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <eo2rko$gni$3@reader01.news.esat.net>,
Calum <com.gmail@scottishwildcat.nospam> wrote:

> I still don't. Just give me the widescreen iPod without all that other
> crap


In due time, and possibly even when the phone actually ships. I can
easily imagine something with a similar form factor that is just a
little thicker for the 80GB drive (or 120GB or whatever the max is when
the next iPod upgrade comes out). The beauty of the $500 pricing, if
there can be beauty in that, is that Apple can not only compare it to a
$200 nano + $300 phone in one direction, but it can also ship a similar
looking 6G iPod at $350 and say "look at all you could get if you went
with an iPhone for just $150 more". That might not convince someone
with a huge media library they want to have with them at all times, but
it does help keep tiers to keep extracting "another $50" from people.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 08:49 PM
(PeteCresswell)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Per Tim McNamara:
>But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
>gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.


Is Apple locked in to Cingular? Or are they free to offer the devices on the
open market?
--
PeteCresswell

Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 09:06 PM
Doc O'Leary
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <45a535d1$0$4883$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 09 Jan 2007 22:12:40 -0800 Mij Adyaw wrote:
> > Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on

> America's
> > Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose GSM rather

> than the
> > technically superior CDMA.

>
> They didn't choose GSM, per se, they chose to partner with a _carrier_
> who happens to use GSM.


No, they looked at *the entire damn globe* and determined that quad band
GSM allowed the most coverage. Cingular has just recently made the push
to all GSM, and it may even bite them because they were pushing a lot of
current subscribers to upgrade their old phones by the end of 2006. If
Cingular had any brains they would extend their non-GSM service past the
end of March until the time the iPhone ships. Otherwise, if I'm going
to be locked into a contract for a phone I don't want, I might as well
just switch to T-Mobile.

> I expect AT&T (what Cingular will be called by the time anyone is able to
> buy one) saw the iPhone as an excellent opportunity to reinvent their
> image while launching America's Most Renamed Network.


Which is funny, because I was originally an AT&T customer. That's how
my phone is still branded! :-) And the only image I saw being
re-invented is how *terrible* most corporate executives are on stage; go
watch the Macworld keynote and see the Cingular guy suck all the energy
out of the room.

> Can you really believe that Verizon would sell a phone that the
> manufacturer wouldn't let them cripple? I'm amazed Apple got any
> American carrier to cater to them. I half expected Apple to launch their
> own MVNO for the phone (a la Amp'd or Disney) just to avoid having to
> work with a carrier over design and pricing issues.


Cingular was at least smart enough to see what partnering with Apple got
them. Most phones are commodities that everyone has and are often
"disposable". While it's all good fun to lock people in over common
phones, the real money is in an exclusive phone and a sweet, sweet
$90/month contract. Balk over the $500 iPhone price tag all you want,
but it's nothing compared to how much money is coming in on the plan
itself.

> Anybody think Apple's going to let AT&T silkscreen a blue globe on the
> back? ;-)


Yeah, branding is going to be a really interesting issue to play out. I
saw the screen displaying the Cingular name and, honestly, I'd rather
they tag the back of the phone than take up screen real estate. It's
not like people are going to be changing carriers so often that we need
to see it displayed on the top of the screen all the time.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 09:13 PM
Roger Johnstone
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In <45a4fb1f$0$69039$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> SMS wrote:
>
> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one
> for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple
> will have a winner.


That is exactly the same comment many people, including reviewers, made
when the iPod first came out. "Very cool, too expensive." And the same
thing will probably happen this time around: it's so cool that people
will buy them at the high price, and Apple won't be able to keep up with
the initial demand. In a couple of years the 3rd generation iPhone with
32GB of flash, WiMax, and a second camera pointing the correct way for
video calling, will still cost U$600, but the iPhone Classic will be
available for half that.

A year later Microsoft will introduce the Zune Phone. No one will notice.

--
* Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
* PS/2 Mouse Adapter for vintage Apple II or Mac
* SCART RGB video cable for Apple IIGS

Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 10:15 PM
Tim McNamara
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <45a4fb1f$0$69039$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>, "Mij Adyaw"
> >> <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone
> >>> on America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they
> >>> chose GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
> >> Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in
> >> not partnering with Apple.
> >>
> >> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America?
> >> That's gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves
> >> dramatically.

> >
> >
> > First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> > capability,

>
> Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage
> is consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
>
> Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide,
> so they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
> Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up
> that revenue stream to Apple.


T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage. Would have
been a much better choice than Cingular, and I'd have jumped on an
iPhone as soon as they became available if it came with T-Mobile service
(I have had Sprint since they started up and no actual complaints about
them).

> The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially
> given the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell
> a version of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot
> so users can insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
>
> The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost
> always the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one
> for $500 or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple
> will have a winner.


That's pretty much what what people said about the iPod. Too bad that
was such a market failure. You'd think Apple would learn from their
mistakes. :-)

Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 10:20 PM
Tim McNamara
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

In article <nl8ph.21069$GD4.10340@newsfe13.phx>,
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:

> <karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:15r9q2da2plr8l2eps1sb7gdsn1agdqmrd@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> > <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> >> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone
> >>> on America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they
> >>> chose GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
> >>
> >>Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in
> >>not partnering with Apple.
> >>
> >>But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America?
> >>That's gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves
> >>dramatically.

> >
> > First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> > capability, secondly Sprint always comes in worse, whther its J.D.
> > Power, the Yankee Group, or Consumer Reports.
> >
> > Pick a year 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003;
> >
> > the results are the same. Sprint is worst.

>
> Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you
> will find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent
> roaming capability. The only thing that Sprint lacks in customer
> service.


I've had Sprint for quite a few years, basically since they got into the
business. I've had generally good technical service and good customer
service as well.

Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 11:14 PM
Mij Adyaw
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

yes.

"Reginald Dwight" <regdwight@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:regdwight-C3A43A.08542310012007@news.verizon.net...
> In article <nl8ph.21069$GD4.10340@newsfe13.phx>,
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, however if you have actually tried both Sprint and Cingular, you
>> will
>> find that Sprint is much better especially with there excellent roaming
>> capability.

>
> Based on what? The area YOU live in? Have you literally gone and sampled
> coverage across the entire country?




Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 11:35 PM
David C.
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

Quiet Desperation <x@x.com> writes:
>
> Frak me, but it's almost a Mac Mini in my pocket. I read somewhere
> it's motion sensitive like the Wii controller, and to zoom in on the
> web browser you just squeeze the side. I have not seen such a sweet
> gadget since... I dunno when.


Not quite. Go visit Apple's web site for the details, and some great
embedded-video demos.

There are three sensors in the iPhone:
- A motion sensor that can detect when you're holding it in portrait
or landscape mode, and adjust the display accordingly.

- An ambient light sensor, to dim the display in dark rooms.

- A proximity sensor, to know when the phone is up against your ear.
When it's against your ear, the display shuts off (to save battery)
and becomes non-responsive (so your face doesn't end up pushing
random buttons.)

No squeezing. To zoom images, you can double-tap, or you can use a
two-finger approach. Put two fingers on the image, then drag them
apart to make the image larger. Put two fingers on the image and drag
them together ("pinch") to make the image smaller.

> The only bummer is the camera. My place of employment does not allow
> camera phones. I really wish cameras were optional in all phones.


Even if you don't use it? That's annoying.

My employer doesn't allow you to take pictures on-site, but they don't
have a problem with merely posessing a camera. So my RAZR doesn't get
me in trouble.

-- David

Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 01-10-2007, 11:35 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

At 10 Jan 2007 17:15:08 -0600 Tim McNamara wrote:

> T-Mobile uses GSM and has probably the best world coverage. Would have
> been a much better choice than Cingular, and I'd have jumped on an
> iPhone as soon as they became available if it came with T-Mobile service


Cingular has what, 50 million customers vs. T-Mo's 20? Cingular also has
a higher ARPU (roughly translating into a more affluent customer base
able to support selling a $500-600 phone) and has a presence in more
markets than T-Mo.
In addition, the timing is just right for Cingular- the press buzz will
make this a great flagship phone to coincide with the rebranding to AT&T-
I suspect we'll see a lot of "a new phone for the new AT&T"-type
advertising.

> (I have had Sprint since they started up and no actual complaints about
> them).


Personally, I'm surprised Sprint didn't nail this one down. They could
use a shot in the arm right now.


> That's pretty much what what people said about the iPod. Too bad that
> was such a market failure. You'd think Apple would learn from their
> mistakes. :-)


Very funny!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After apples iphone is it time for Microsoft's Zune phone ? rishil uk.telecom.mobile 1 02-05-2007 06:13 AM
Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal Billybobh3 alt.cellular.cingular 49 02-05-2007 03:43 AM
Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal Billybobh3 alt.cellular.verizon 53 02-05-2007 03:43 AM
LG's new phone resembles with Apple's iPhone rishil uk.telecom.mobile 10 01-23-2007 07:16 PM
Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone P.Schuman alt.cellular.verizon 0 01-10-2007 02:24 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45