Verizon Wireless thumbs its nose at the iPhone

At 02 Jul 2007 04:06:24 +0000 Kurt Ullman wrote:

> According to teh National Association of Record Industry
> Professionals' (NARIP) figures, Apple keeps 34 cents of the 99 cents.
> Since all they really have as overhead is servers and cheap storage
> capacity, I would think they get to keep most of that.


All the articles in the trades I've read call the iTunes store a dud
profit wise. Apple only claimed it was profitable in one quarterly report,
IIRC, and has said little about it since.

It's possible it makes a pile of money and Apple says mum on the subject,
but that seems unlikely- most companies like bragging about success.



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

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> > That's like saying the United State or Great Britain never had
> > significant marketshare of population, but oddly enough they still
> > control most of the world.
> >
> > Apple is the LEADER in most all high tech markets, sure their
> > marketshare is low, but you need to learn they OWN the TOP part of the
> > markets they control, (PC, PDA, Music, Video, Cell Phones, etc) everyone
> > else is a "Apple Wannabe".
>
> The Apple Newton and the Lisa computer really took over when they were
> introduced ;-)

the Lisa set the stage for the entire GUI we all use today, the Mac
became popular, and windows became the "cheap chinese version of the
mac", the Newton set the stage for the entire PDA market and is now
morphed into the iPhone.

so even apple's early failures became major world wide successes, it
just took a year and a half in the case of the Lisa, and 15 years for
the Newton.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-07-02, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> They have always had 100% market share of those that own Apple computers.

For a short time, they were allowing other companies to build clones.

But they stopped doing that pretty quickly, which IMHO was foolish.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <ZvXhi.8977$Ui6.5489@fe02.usenetserver.com>,
> balsofsteele@gmail.com <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Selling the second one might be tough for Apple.
>
> Trivial. They were limiting sales to two per customer, and many
> customers bought two. But keep on trollin'

A significant percentage of people returned their iPhones yesterday due
to activation troubles.

Considering the damned things are locked to special SIMs (supposedly),
it sure seems like AT&T could have pre-activated them and assigned
accounts as the account data was presented. Oh well, customer
satisfaction is always number... shit this list is long I can't find it!

Unluckily this is the case with all cell carriers...

"We no longer allow the ability to roam on Sprint PCS systems with your
account" - Verizon, not *that* long ago.

Todd Allcock:
> All the articles in the trades I've read call the iTunes store a dud
> profit wise. Apple only claimed it was profitable in one quarterly report,
> IIRC, and has said little about it since.

You read the wrong trades. It is not the purpose of the iTunes store to
make a few pennies on every item sold. The purpose of the iTunes store
is to sell iPods/iPhones. By any reasonable measure -- absolute
numbers, market share, mind-share -- it has been an enormously
successful retail venture.

> It's possible it makes a pile of money and Apple says mum on the subject,
> but that seems unlikely- most companies like bragging about success.

Apple has not spared the ink when playing up this phenomenal success. A
press release dated April 9, 2007, is entitled "100 Million iPods Sold"
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/09ipod.html>. The brief
release mentions iTunes store six times. Four of those mentions are in
sentences that also contain the word "iPod."

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <q25ii.12531$Ui6.11261@fe02.usenetserver.com>,
"balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:

> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > In article <ZvXhi.8977$Ui6.5489@fe02.usenetserver.com>,
> > balsofsteele@gmail.com <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Selling the second one might be tough for Apple.
> >
> > Trivial. They were limiting sales to two per customer, and many
> > customers bought two. But keep on trollin'
>
> A significant percentage of people returned their iPhones yesterday
> due to activation troubles.

0.5%? 1%? 30%? Your vagueness makes your trolling even less meaningful
than usual. The reasons for the difficulties have to be specified too.
One complaint I have read is that for people switching their existing
number to their new phone, carriers were not promptly processing and
releasing the number. Accepting getting a new number had their iPhones
up and running in minutes (but a pain in the ass, since everyone you
know has the old number and now you have to get your new number to them.
OK if you have three friends and family members, not so good if you have
hundreds).

****ofsteele@gmail.com:

> > A significant percentage of people returned their iPhones yesterday
> > due to activation troubles.

Tim McNamara:
> 0.5%? 1%? 30%? Your vagueness makes your trolling even less meaningful
> than usual. The reasons for the difficulties have to be specified too.
> One complaint I have read is that for people switching their existing
> number to their new phone, carriers were not promptly processing and
> releasing the number. Accepting getting a new number had their iPhones
> up and running in minutes (but a pain in the ass, since everyone you
> know has the old number and now you have to get your new number to them.
> OK if you have three friends and family members, not so good if you have
> hundreds).

Exactly so. The transfer of a number from another carrier does not
involve only AT&T. The legitimate press report that 2% of iPhone
customers experienced difficulties. That's 2% higher than the ideal,
but it's not really a significant number.

Consider that over 500,000 iPhones were sold over the weekend
(independent analyst estimates.) That is an unprecedented number of
activations, more than anyone's activation system was designed to
handle. AT&T says that nearly all were activated in "from five to eight
minutes." My niece's activation (moved a number from another AT&T
phone) required about three minutes, but she's an accurate typist, and
perhaps not typical.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <468844f4$0$10194$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> As you correctly point out, other manufacturers create superior spec'd
> hardware at lower retail prices, yet iTunes helps insure that people
> upgrade their old iPod with newer iPods rather than switch brands and
> devalue their investment in iTunes downloads.

It's the interface, not iTunes. Most iPod users have few if any iTunes
downloads. iTunes is an epiphenominon.

In article
<TNVhi.137078$Sa4.131261@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:

> "Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C2AD722D0001C804F0203648@newsgroups.be llsouth.net...
> > On Jul 1, 2007, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> Pundits said Apple would have to sell 100,000 phones this weekend to
> >> keep from being a flop, and 200,000 to be a success. Apple will blow
> >> by 300,000 before Sunday is over. The bar has been raised ! !
> >
> > So 100,001 to 199,999 is a ... successful flop? A floppy success?
> >
> Thank heaven for early adapters. They drive the cost down for us more
> rational folks. I'll wait a year or two for version 2.0 or 3.0, at a lower
> price, more features, and (hopefully) a better carrier.
>
> (20-some years in tech world has taught me- never buy the first version of
> ANYTHING. Let somebody else do the field beta-testing, and amortize the R&D
> costs.)
>
> aem sends...

Unless you can make a business case for doing it now.

In article <proto-D2081C.11592502072007@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>,
Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:

> In article
> <TNVhi.137078$Sa4.131261@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "aemeijers" <aemeijers@att.net> wrote:
>
> > "Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in message
> > news:0001HW.C2AD722D0001C804F0203648@newsgroups.be llsouth.net...
> > > On Jul 1, 2007, karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> > >> Pundits said Apple would have to sell 100,000 phones this weekend to
> > >> keep from being a flop, and 200,000 to be a success. Apple will blow
> > >> by 300,000 before Sunday is over. The bar has been raised ! !
> > >
> > > So 100,001 to 199,999 is a ... successful flop? A floppy success?
> > >
> > Thank heaven for early adapters. They drive the cost down for us more
> > rational folks. I'll wait a year or two for version 2.0 or 3.0, at a lower
> > price, more features, and (hopefully) a better carrier.
> >
> > (20-some years in tech world has taught me- never buy the first version of
> > ANYTHING. Let somebody else do the field beta-testing, and amortize the R&D
> > costs.)
> >
> > aem sends...
>
> Unless you can make a business case for doing it now.

You misspelled "rationalization" (g).

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:38:05 -0500, "balsofsteele@gmail.com"
<balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:

>Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> In article <6n7hi.16221$Fo1.3467@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, Dr zara
>> <jackcal@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have used ATT and Verizon for at least twenty years, concurrently. Let me
>>> assure you that ATT third rate. Verizon blows it away on a daily basis.
>>> FYI: The "new" ATT is not anything like the "old" ATT.
>>
>> More accurately phrased: Verizon blows.
>> But, if you like crippled hardware so they can do open wallet surgery
>> at every turn...then go for it.
>
>Stop, back the truck up...
>
>The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone that
>I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is mostly
>WORTHLESS.

And 3 of the 4 buttons in the nav key of a V3m are LOCKED. They point
to more way for verizon to suck money out of it's users.

People look at these phones before they get one. The see the features
they like. The find they do not get these features with a verizon
phone.

And verizon wonders why people are hacking the phones...?


>It has multiple problems:
>
>#1 - its really slow! Its even painfully slow on BT 2.0 if you're
>moving more than a handful of photos at a time, forget MP3s or movies.
>Its worse with wifi or any other 2.4 ghz interference present (I've
>actually caused my BT adapter to be completely unable to work by running
>netstumbler - the constant flow of AP queries sent by NS (on every wifi
>channel) managed to completely hose the BT connection)
>
>#2 - its not reliable, and the failure modes vary depending on
>manufacturer/model/situation/etc. Ever tried to recover lost clusters
>in the internal flash on a phone that you have no direct file system
>access on? Its not much fun.
>
>#3 - its a support nightmare. Verizon doesn't want to support your
>peecee (or macintrash) unless you cough up the big bucks for a data
>account. Considering how stupid-and-proud-of-it most people are, I
>can't blame them. Theres a reason PDA data accounts are cheaper -
>theres significantly less support hassles compared to pc-card/tethered
>customers.
>
>If you want easy access to add/modify/remove files, you should get a
>phone that supports a removable memory card. Its a lot more convenient
>than any other option and several hundred times faster than anything
>you're going to push over bluetooth. Buying good, fast flash can
>improve the phone's responsiveness (especially when saving images) by
>comparison to the internal flash, and you reduce the chance of 'wearing
>out' the internal flash (most flash is only rated for between 100k to 1M
>writes). The other nice thing about this is applications like WMP and
>WinAmp will "pick up" the flash device (once its been initialized by
>inserted in the cellphone at least once while its turned on) as a
>multimedia device and handle the files for you. You can also copy files
>'the old fashioned way' (there are separate folders on the flash for the
>different types of media)
>
>Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when it
>comes to data services. Some carriers (at least they did a few years
>back) charge extra for dial-out modem (14.4k) access, and nobody else I
>can find offers anything similar to the MOU 1xRTT/EVDO. That alone
>saves me at least $35/mo compared to any other carrier and I never burn
>up enough of my minutes (~200 minutes and ~40MB per month of 1x usage)
>to care.
>
>The minutes are the same price as the other area carriers, the text/pics
>are about the same price, and I don't have to pay out the ass for small
>quantities of data usage... Works out perfect for me.
>
>I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do. The VX9800 has a
>faster cellular radio and can stream things off the cell network with
>ease. tethered data speeds are limited by the bt 1.2 interface and my
>lack of a compatible USB data cable. Theres really only two reasons I'd
>want a wifi-capable phone: The ability for the phone to operate as a
>wifi AP and route between the cellular interface and wifi - this won't
>happen on the iphone due to the slow EDGE cellular radio. The second
>feature would be for it to be a VoIP-over-WiFi client, which doesn't
>exist (yet), but does for almost every other modern smartphone out there.
>
>Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't one of
>them, obviously. They're not in a position to be competitive with folks
>like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>
>Oh well, nothing like good ol' Usenet. Full of loudmouth jackasses and
>the corporate ringers that lead them around...
-- --

On Jun 29, 8:55 am, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:28:53 -0700, Kuriashkin Victor
>
> <vk4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I mean,
>
> >http://iphone-msn.comservice.
>
> >User with iPhone need just to open this url on her iPhone Safari
>
> If it's a him, he might want to download Playboy movies, formatted for
> the iPhone.
>
> http://www.playboy.com/style/feature...boy-video.html

Or if it's a lesbian.

On Jun 29, 10:30 am, George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:16:34 -0700, Jeff wrote
> (in article <Y4FN5BZJ39262.1781712...@anonymous.poster>):
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-973...?tag=cnetfd.mt
>
> > With the iPhone completely dominating cell phone news this week, it's easy
> > to forget that other cell phones exist. Crave wonders why any manufacturer
> > or service provider would see the PR benefit in making an announcement this
> > week, but that hasn't stopped T-Mobile from unveiling its Hotspot @Home and
> > Sprint from taking the wraps off its new LG Muziq phone.
>
> > But today Verizon Wireless revealed that it was hosting its own party to
> > match the Apple and AT&T events on the iPhone launch day. In a press
> > release, the carrier invites shoppers to test-drive "the leading wireless
> > company with the most reliable voice and data network". Meow.
>
> > The carrier also invites shoppers to check out its selection of music cell
> > phones, including the LG VX9400, which is on sale for $99.99. That's a good
> > deal for a cool phone, but the keep in mind that the spiffy V Cast Mobile
> > TV service (something the VX9400 supports) is available only in a few
> > cities. Yet unlike the iPhone, the LG handset does offer 3G.
>
> > Buyers will also be able to download songs wirelessly at the stores from
> > Verizon's V Cast Music service. As everyone knows, the iPhone will not
> > support tune downloads over the air. But the best news is that customers
> > will get a free Music Essentials kit, which normally sets you back $30.
> > That's exceedingly generous of Verizon, considering the kit is needed to
> > even sync a phone with a PC. We don't know why Verizon just doesn't give
> > you the kit in the first place, but that another story.
>
> > So if you've decided you're too cool for the iPhone, or you refuse to leave
> > Verizon for AT&T, you'll be pleased to know that Verizon has you covered.
> > Verizon stores and kiosks will stay open until 9 p.m. And you can be sure
> > these stores won't have a line.
>
> Is the iPhone locked? If it isn't, why wouldn't any GSM - based phone/data
> system's SIM card work? I have a Blackberry 7100 that I don't use any more
> for various reasons, but mostly due to it's lousy reception. When I bought
> it, it came with T-Mobile service. After six months I got them to give me the
> code to unlock the phone so that I could use pay-as-you-go phone service in
> Europe (T-Mobile's roam charges overseas were outrageous - over a dollar a
> minute at that time as I recall while TIM (Telecom Italia Mobilare) charged
> less than US$0.30/min domestically). In an effort to get better coverage, I
> switched from T-Mobile to Cingular after my service contract period was up.
> All I had to do was remove the T-Moble SIM card and replace it with a
> Cingular card and Voila! I had a Cingular Blackberry. It was then that I
> found that it wasn't the service that had lousy coverage, it was the phone
> itself, so I went down to the Cingular store and found a tiny blister-packed
> 'Go-Phone' (Motorola V190) for $30. I popped my SIM card out of the
> Blackberry and into the Moto, and I've never looked back. The Blackberry now
> resides in a bureau drawer, and Moto gives me 4-bars here at home where the
> Blackberry barely gave one.
>
> My point is that if GSM phones are unlocked, it looks as if you can use
> anybody's service (as long as they are GSM).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The U.S. providers know that Americans don't get the whole "unlocked",
"locked", "sim card" thing.

99% of them think that when you buy a phone, you have to automatically
get some sort of plan with the phone.

It's not like Europe, where you buy any phone you want, and then go
the local tabac or news stand and buy or recharge your sim card.

On Jun 30, 12:17 pm, Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com>
wrote:
> In article <620a8392vep88e74cavj2pi0t6hrvu1...@4ax.com>,
>
> <karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > In a vain attempt to stop the churn of 1 million users to the iPhone
> > before years end, Verizon is waiving activation fees
> > untill July 9 at Circuit City locations.
>
> Who in their right mind would want a crippled Verizon phone?

Who in their right mind would sign onto Verizon, period??

Their network only works in the the U.S.!

On Jun 30, 1:09 pm, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article <620a8392vep88e74cavj2pi0t6hrvu1...@4ax.com>,
> > <karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> In a vain attempt to stop the churn of 1 million users to the iPhone
> >> before years end, Verizon is waiving activation fees
> >> untill July 9 at Circuit City locations.
>
> > Who in their right mind would want a crippled Verizon phone?
>
> Whats crippled? My phones makes and receives calls just fine and in a
> lot more places than at&t.

Have you taken your Verizon phone to Europe or Canada? Enjoy your new
paperweight. Because that's all it will be good for.

On Jul 2, 1:20 pm, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> s...@winning.com wrote on [Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:17:30 -0000]:
>
> > On Jun 30, 12:17 pm, Randall Ainsworth <r...@nospam.techline.com>
> > wrote:
> >> In article <620a8392vep88e74cavj2pi0t6hrvu1...@4ax.com>,
>
> >> <karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > In a vain attempt to stop the churn of 1 million users to the iPhone
> >> > before years end, Verizon is waiving activation fees
> >> > untill July 9 at Circuit City locations.
>
> >> Who in their right mind would want a crippled Verizon phone?
>
> > Who in their right mind would sign onto Verizon, period??
>
> > Their network only works in the the U.S.!
>
> And it only works better in the U.S. too!

?? huh? wtf

On Jul 2, 1:21 pm, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> s...@winning.com wrote on [Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:19:07 -0000]:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 1:09 pm, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> >> > In article <620a8392vep88e74cavj2pi0t6hrvu1...@4ax.com>,
> >> > <karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> In a vain attempt to stop the churn of 1 million users to the iPhone
> >> >> before years end, Verizon is waiving activation fees
> >> >> untill July 9 at Circuit City locations.
>
> >> > Who in their right mind would want a crippled Verizon phone?
>
> >> Whats crippled? My phones makes and receives calls just fine and in a
> >> lot more places than at&t.
>
> > Have you taken your Verizon phone to Europe or Canada? Enjoy your new
> > paperweight. Because that's all it will be good for.
>
> That's why you buy a prepaid phone in those places. It's cheaper in the
> long run that paying international roaming. Plus you have a phone with a
> local charger.
>
> I know. It's a concept.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You take out the sim card of your US GSM phone and buy a sim card in
whatever country you need it for. You can just stick on a power
adapter to your charger's US plug. That way you still have all of
your contacts and other info that's been saved to your phone.

In news:im-A8C2B0.23213001072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net,
Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>> That's like saying the United State or Great Britain never had
>>> significant marketshare of population, but oddly enough they still
>>> control most of the world.
>>>
>>> Apple is the LEADER in most all high tech markets, sure their
>>> marketshare is low, but you need to learn they OWN the TOP part of the
>>> markets they control, (PC, PDA, Music, Video, Cell Phones, etc) everyone
>>> else is a "Apple Wannabe".
>>
>> The Apple Newton and the Lisa computer really took over when they were
>> introduced ;-)
>
> the Lisa set the stage for the entire GUI we all use today, the Mac
> became popular, and windows became the "cheap chinese version of the
> mac", the Newton set the stage for the entire PDA market and is now
> morphed into the iPhone.
>
> so even apple's early failures became major world wide successes, it
> just took a year and a half in the case of the Lisa, and 15 years for
> the Newton.

Actually Xerox invented the GUI. Apple implemented it in the Lisa but it
was way to expensive. So they created the cheap version and called it the
Mac.

On Jul 1, 2:18 pm, "balsofste...@gmail.com" <balsofste...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY
> HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

....guess you werent around for that personal computing & desktop
publishing thing in the 80s, eh? or the music composition market of
the 80s & 90s. or the portable music player thing of the 90s & 00s...
or education, or advertising, or graphic design, etc... markets were
apple was or is still the most desired tool.


sm

On Jul 1, 9:57 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dunno, its got a rather better user interface than most of the
> alternatives,

nice to see youve come around.

> with some real downsides too, like not being able
> to treat the device as a drive too, and no user replaceable battery.

yeah, in agreement. no voice dialing, no SMS are up there, too.

> Maybe. I cant think of too many that are such elegant
> designs tho except where the media player is integrated in
> the phone, something Apple is VERY late to market with.

this point sounds insignificant -- according to jupiter research, only
5% of mobile phone customers use their phone's media player:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2150841,00.asp

....w/ iphone users, i would expect to see that number being much, much
larger. its media playing is one big reason many customers are even
interested in the iphone.

> Yes, it should certainly be 3G.
> A quite elegant user interface tho.


sm

On Jul 1, 10:27 pm, "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> The Apple Newton and the Lisa computer really took over when they were
> introduced ;-)

while early newtons were plagued w/ handwriting issues, keep in mind
they pioneered the market. there was no palm, etc (in fact Dubinsky,
Palm co-founder, was an apple employee. their first pda sucked, too).

also, many consider the latter newtons very good at what they do.
somewhat tongue in check, but many good points:

http://digitalliving.cnet.co.uk/spec...82099-1,00.htm


sm

On Jul 2, 1:11 pm, "IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> Actually Xerox invented the GUI. Apple implemented it in the Lisa but it
> was way to expensive. So they created the cheap version and called it the
> Mac.

from what ive read off www.folklore.org, the mac & lisa were in tandem
development. jobs didnt like the way lisa was going, so he
commandeered raskin's apple project.. where he would often pit his mac
people against the lisa people, etc..part of the reason why they fired
him after launch. rest is history.

sm

In article <Tdbii.190403$dC2.13244@newsfe13.lga>,
"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> In news:im-A8C2B0.23213001072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net,
> Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> typed:
> > "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> >
> >>> That's like saying the United State or Great Britain never had
> >>> significant marketshare of population, but oddly enough they still
> >>> control most of the world.
> >>>
> >>> Apple is the LEADER in most all high tech markets, sure their
> >>> marketshare is low, but you need to learn they OWN the TOP part of the
> >>> markets they control, (PC, PDA, Music, Video, Cell Phones, etc) everyone
> >>> else is a "Apple Wannabe".
> >>
> >> The Apple Newton and the Lisa computer really took over when they were
> >> introduced ;-)
> >
> > the Lisa set the stage for the entire GUI we all use today, the Mac
> > became popular, and windows became the "cheap chinese version of the
> > mac", the Newton set the stage for the entire PDA market and is now
> > morphed into the iPhone.
> >
> > so even apple's early failures became major world wide successes, it
> > just took a year and a half in the case of the Lisa, and 15 years for
> > the Newton.
>
> Actually Xerox invented the GUI. Apple implemented it in the Lisa but it
> was way to expensive. So they created the cheap version and called it the
> Mac.

Xerox implemented *a* GUI. A GUI which was lacking many of the things we
now take for granted.

Most of those things, we got from Apple's GUI.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

SpaceMarine <spacemarine@mailinator.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>> Dunno, its got a rather better user interface than most of the alternatives,

> nice to see youve come around.

I just pointed out some of its deficiencys previously, because
that was what was being discussed. I have always considered
that its UI is rather better than most of the alternatives.

Same with the physical ipod, but not with iTunes.

>> with some real downsides too, like not being able to treat
>> the device as a drive too, and no user replaceable battery.

> yeah, in agreement. no voice dialing, no SMS are up there, too.

No cut and paste either, that would be a complete pain for
me, I use that all the time, and its not clear how easy it will
be to add to the rather unusual UI. Maybe the reason its
missing is because it isnt practical to do that well with that UI.

>> Maybe. I cant think of too many that are such elegant
>> designs tho except where the media player is integrated
>> in the phone, something Apple is VERY late to market with.

> this point sounds insignificant -- according to jupiter research, only
> 5% of mobile phone customers use their phone's media player:

> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2150841,00.asp

What matters is how many fart around with a separate ipod when
their phone has a media player and how many of those have made
a deliberate choice to fart around with two physical devices due to
the UI and how many are such klutzes that they cant work out how
to get their music into the phone when iTunes doesnt make that easy.

> ...w/ iphone users, i would expect to see that number being much, much larger.

Sure, certainly even the biggest klutz should be able to
update iTunes and just keep using that with their iphone.

Its less clear how many actually want to have a media player out of the total of
phone users. There's far more who have a phone now than any media player.

> its media playing is one big reason many customers are even interested in the iphone.

You dont know that.

>> Yes, it should certainly be 3G.
>> A quite elegant user interface tho.

On Jul 2, 2:41 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> No cut and paste either, that would be a complete pain for
> me, I use that all the time, and its not clear how easy it will
> be to add to the rather unusual UI. Maybe the reason its
> missing is because it isnt practical to do that well with that UI.

for me the voice dialing & SMS are bigger pains, along w/ a battery --
these are features im used to using on a cell. c&p isnt something ive
needed as badly, since my compositions in-phone are much briefer than
on my notebook or desktop.

> > this point sounds insignificant -- according to jupiter research, only
> > 5% of mobile phone customers use their phone's media player:
> >http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2150841,00.asp
>
> What matters is how many fart around with a separate ipod when
> their phone has a media player

i think those numbers are tied. if consumer report X shows how many
cell-phone-owners also have a stand alone media player (i dont have
that number, but i wouldnt be surprised if its large), but if only 5%
cell-phone-owners bother w/ the in-phone media player, one can get an
idea of how many fart around w/ two devices.

> Sure, certainly even the biggest klutz should be able to
> update iTunes and just keep using that with their iphone.

designing for klutzes is what good UI is all about. making things easy
for non-comptuer-experts is the bread & butter for some companies,
including apple.

> > its media playing is one big reason many customers are even interested in the iphone.
> You dont know that.

did you watch the macworld announcement? apple said they would be
announcing 3 new devices: a phone, an ipod, and an internet device.
the fact that the ipod & phone are the same device is one of its major
selling points. certainly, we know that is a large part of why
consumers are interested in it. in no order, its strong points are
media, internet, UI, style -- it would be hard to argue most are
interested in its minor points.

as for absolute, quantitative Knowing, of course nobody on this groups
is a swami or industry executive, so half the shit we talk about is
unsubstantiated, your own posts included.


sm

SpaceMarine <spacemarine@mailinator.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>> No cut and paste either, that would be a complete pain for
>> me, I use that all the time, and its not clear how easy it will
>> be to add to the rather unusual UI. Maybe the reason its
>> missing is because it isnt practical to do that well with that UI.

> for me the voice dialing & SMS are bigger pains, along w/
> a battery -- these are features im used to using on a cell.

Yeah, a very common readily available battery too. Thats one big advantage
with Nokias, there arent that many battery types and they are dirt cheap when
you need them because they are so common. The LGs are a complete pain in
in the arse to find a new battery for in comparison, so many different ones.

> c&p isnt something ive needed as badly, since my compositions
> in-phone are much briefer than on my notebook or desktop.

Its more for web browsing that for ops with the phone itself.

>>> this point sounds insignificant -- according to jupiter research,
>>> only 5% of mobile phone customers use their phone's media player:
>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2150841,00.asp

>> What matters is how many fart around with a
>> separate ipod when their phone has a media player

> i think those numbers are tied.

Remains to be seen with jupiter's numbers.

> if consumer report X shows how many cell-phone-owners also have a stand alone
> media player (i dont have that number, but i wouldnt be surprised if its large),

Yeah, so few phones come without one now.

> but if only 5% cell-phone-owners bother w/ the in-phone media player,
> one can get an idea of how many fart around w/ two devices.

Not really, you just dont know how many actually use a media player at all much.

>>> ...w/ iphone users, i would expect to see that number being much, much larger.

>> Sure, certainly even the biggest klutz should be able to
>> update iTunes and just keep using that with their iphone.

> designing for klutzes is what good UI is all about.

Not in this case, thats more locking in the suckers.

> making things easy for non-comptuer-experts is the
> bread & butter for some companies, including apple.

Sure, but the main purpose of iTunes is to lock
the suckers into sticking with Apple products.

>>> its media playing is one big reason many
>>> customers are even interested in the iphone.

>> You dont know that.

> did you watch the macworld announcement?

Thats just the spin/bullshit, you dont know what the customers are actually interested in.

> apple said they would be announcing 3 new devices: a phone, an ipod, and an internet
> device. the fact that the ipod & phone are the same device is one of its major selling points.

Separate matter entirely to why the customers buy it outside the hype phase.

> certainly, we know that is a large part of why consumers are interested in it.

No you dont. You dont even know that with the suckers
stupid enough to queue to buy it in the first week.

> in no order, its strong points are media, internet, UI, style --
> it would be hard to argue most are interested in its minor points.

Sure, but you have no way of knowing how many buy it for the
ipod functionality and how many just buy it for the decently
portable wifi browser/email capability etc when they want what
they use most of the time in the one well designed package.

> as for absolute, quantitative Knowing, of course nobody on
> this groups is a swami or industry executive, so half the shit
> we talk about is unsubstantiated, your own posts included.

There's a difference between discussing particular features like a removable
battery and lack of it, cut and paste and lack of it, and pontificating about why
most of those who are buying the iphone choose the iphone over something else.

In alt.cellular.verizon senna@winning.com wrote:

> Who in their right mind would sign onto Verizon, period??

> Their network only works in the the U.S.!

That's irrelevant to those who usually stay within the U.S. Many of them
may not be in their right minds, but their signing onto Verizon doesn't
tell you much about them one way or the other. Your post, OTOH, shows
you to be an idiot.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

On Jul 2, 3:42 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > but if only 5% cell-phone-owners bother w/ the in-phone media player,
> > one can get an idea of how many fart around w/ two devices.
>
> Not really, you just dont know how many actually use a media player at all much.

we know that media players are very popular. do some googling and you
can probably find out how many millions on millions of stand alone
media players have been sold. id bet theyre nearly as ubiquitous as
cells. so we know people have both cell phones & stand alone media
players.

> > designing for klutzes is what good UI is all about.
>
> Not in this case, thats more locking in the suckers.

not really. the itunes music manager doesnt lock anyone into it. its
just a file manager. buying proprietary DRM is what locks you to a
platform. just dont do it.

> Sure, but the main purpose of iTunes is to lock
> the suckers into sticking with Apple products.

wheres your data? ive read more than once that most music on ipods is
*not* itunes store DRM content, but regular content the users own
(ripping cds). what data do you have that sustains your claim?

> Thats just the spin/bullshit, you dont know what the customers are actually interested
> in.

not at all. macworld is a product launch event for a targeted market.
i think they know what their customers want to see announced more than
some random guy on usenet.

> > as for absolute, quantitative Knowing, of course nobody on
> > this groups is a swami or industry executive, so half the shit
> > we talk about is unsubstantiated, your own posts included.
>
> There's a difference between discussing particular features like a removable
> battery and lack of it, cut and paste and lack of it, and pontificating about why
> most of those who are buying the iphone choose the iphone over something else.

....but have you forgotten -- my initial response was to your assertion
that iPhone has come to the market "VERY late". certainly not a
discussion on a particular feature or lack thereof.

then we got side-tracked into the validity of my suggestion that its
consolidated nature is one of its big draw (unspoken & understood is
apples good UI for making the consolidation work for a mass market,
where others have failed).

> > certainly, we know that is a large part of why consumers are interested in it.
> No you dont. You dont even know that with the suckers
> stupid enough to queue to buy it in the first week.

since its a consolidated device that doesnt beat stand-alone feature
sets, theres no reason not to suggest its the consolidated nature that
is a big, big feature. it does 3 things:

- cell: bigger than most, no tactile buttons, everyone already owns or
can own a cheaper handset

- media: not as large, cheap, or portable as an iPod

- internet: doesnt do it very quickly (browsing on EDGE, slower typing
than notebook), definitely not a primary device

....ok, we've established it doesnt excel at any one of the 3 primary
features when compared to stand-alone devices of same type. therefore,
its reasonable to believe its being sold, and is desired by, people
who want a consolidated device; and since there are only two non-talk
things being consolidated (music & inet), its reasonable to believe
lots of their expected customer base is interested in a consolidated
music/cell device. its also reasonable to believe these same
interested customers are not being served by the current market. thus,
its reasonable to believe theres no pity in apple coming to the market
"VERY late", as you profess...


sm

SpaceMarine quoted:
> On Jul 1, 9:57 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> with some real downsides too, like not being able
>> to treat the device as a drive too, and no user replaceable battery.

It's an irritating "feature" but long before the warranty
expires on the first iPhone sold, ten geeks will have published
detailed instructions on how to replace your own battery.

--
Wes Groleau

"In the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical
contradiction of Method B: if the assumptions from which
A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work,
and vice versa. Yet one colleague is getting excellent
results with A and another is getting comparable results
with B. How is this possible?"
-- Earl W. Stevick

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in news:9Pgii.1344$Np2.1143
@trnddc07:

> SpaceMarine quoted:
>> On Jul 1, 9:57 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> with some real downsides too, like not being able
>>> to treat the device as a drive too, and no user replaceable battery.
>
> It's an irritating "feature" but long before the warranty
> expires on the first iPhone sold, ten geeks will have published
> detailed instructions on how to void your warranty..
>

Fixed.