Clearwire may be optimistic about the growth of 4G WiMAX in 2010 and
beyond but network hardware manufacturers are a bit more bearish on
the 4G wireless technology.
Last month, Alcatel Lucent announced it will be scaling back on its 4G
WiMAX equipment and focusing on LTE; while popular WiMAX chipset maker
Beceem introduced a new WiMAX/LTE multi-mode chipset to be used in
devices that will support both wireless technologies.
The latest company to join this burgeoning 4G WiMAX exodus is Cisco,
which announced plans to discontinue the production of new WiMAX base
stations and modems. Rather than provide the radios for the wireless
4G technology, Cisco is adopting a radio agnostic strategy and will
focus on the IP network and IP equipment that runs behind the base
stations and modems.
This discontinuation is more symbolic than it is detrimental to
Clearwire as most of the Cisco equipment purchased by Clearwire is IP
and not radio equipment.
Nonetheless, it is yet another indication that, though WiMAX currently
has the lead, network hardware manufacturers see a bright future for
LTE and are not willing to place all their eggs in the WiMAX basket.
That’s certainly understandable.
--
That may explain why Apple did not build a WiMax version of the iPad.
On Mar 10, 6:17*am, "FUTURE SHOCK: iPad Protected by 200 Patents"
<vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cisco dumps its WiMAX base station and modem business
> from Boy Genius Report by Kelly Hodgkinshttp://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/03/10/cisco-dumps-its-wimax-base-...
>
> Clearwire may be optimistic about the growth of 4G WiMAX in 2010 and
> beyond but network hardware manufacturers are a bit more bearish on
> the 4G wireless technology.
Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least for
the next 3 years.
There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be LTE
network for many years to come.
I suggest that the competition is too fierce for the profit margins
available, instead.
(The market for WiMax devices, worldwide, will be even larger in the
future.)
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carcarx@hotmail.com>
wrote in
<831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0e01@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Mar 10, 6:17*am, "FUTURE SHOCK: iPad Protected by 200 Patents"
><vic.hea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Cisco dumps its WiMAX base station and modem business
>> from Boy Genius Report by Kelly Hodgkinshttp://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/03/10/cisco-dumps-its-wimax-base-...
>>
>> Clearwire may be optimistic about the growth of 4G WiMAX in 2010 and
>> beyond but network hardware manufacturers are a bit more bearish on
>> the 4G wireless technology.
>
>Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least for
>the next 3 years.
Whose estimates?
>There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be LTE
>network for many years to come.
I'll take that bet. LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
with all the major players behind it. Sprint only has a narrow window
of opportunity.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Mar 12, 9:57*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in
> <831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least for
> >the next 3 years.
>
> Whose estimates?
> >There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be LTE
> >network for many years to come.
>
> I'll take that bet. *LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
> with all the major players behind it. *Sprint only has a narrow window
> of opportunity.
Of course you will, but you don't have any risk involved.
carcarx wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:57 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carc...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>
>>> Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least for
>>> the next 3 years.
>> Whose estimates?
>
> You can further your research here:
>
> http://gigaom.com/2010/02/10/wimax-global-deployments/
>
>>> There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be LTE
>>> network for many years to come.
>> I'll take that bet. LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
>> with all the major players behind it. Sprint only has a narrow window
>> of opportunity.
>
> Of course you will, but you don't have any risk involved.
> On Mar 12, 9:57*pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carc...
@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> <831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>
>> >Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least
for
>> >the next 3 years.
>>
>> Whose estimates?
>
> You can further your research here:
>
> http://gigaom.com/2010/02/10/wimax-global-deployments/
>
>> >There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be
LTE
>> >network for many years to come.
>>
>> I'll take that bet. *LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
>> with all the major players behind it. *Sprint only has a narrow
window
>> of opportunity.
>
> Of course you will, but you don't have any risk involved.
>
Third World countries like the USA are wallowing in corporate indecision
and schemes to prevent churning from the constant poor service while
bigtime technology countries, like Bahrain, has had nationwide WIMAX
running in the kingdom from Zain@Home in Kuwait, another technological
country, since September, 2007. My friend Mahmood has both the
mobile/portable WiMax and home WiMax, which also is his home telephone
service and reports it works great anywhere in the kingdom. They had it
throttled at 2Mbps when it came out but have since gone up to 10Mbps due
to customer demand and competition from other carriers that saturate the
kingdom.
America will continue to pit company against company, technology against
technology, just like it did TDMA/CDMA/GSM/EDGE/UPYOURS/EVDO and half a
dozen other achronyms, wallowing in the mud....instead of the damned FCC
doing its job and FORCING them to all use a compatible system ANY user's
phone will run, like Europe's GSM rollout. Billions of dollars are
wasted each year on incompatible phones/aircards/smartphones you can
only use on 1 or two carriers....which allows the corporations to
continue to give the finger to customer complaints as they are all
colluding in providing the same level of poor service.
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
Larry wrote:
> carcarx <carcarx@hotmail.com> wrote in news:34038644-9b75-406f-aaef-
> 17e4d23b49d8@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Mar 12, 9:57 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carc...
> @hotmail.com>
>>> wrote in
>>> <831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>> Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least
> for
>>>> the next 3 years.
>>> Whose estimates?
>> You can further your research here:
>>
>> http://gigaom.com/2010/02/10/wimax-global-deployments/
>>
>>>> There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be
> LTE
>>>> network for many years to come.
>>> I'll take that bet. LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
>>> with all the major players behind it. Sprint only has a narrow
> window
>>> of opportunity.
>> Of course you will, but you don't have any risk involved.
>>
>
> Third World countries like the USA are wallowing in corporate indecision
> and schemes to prevent churning from the constant poor service while
> bigtime technology countries, like Bahrain, has had nationwide WIMAX
> running in the kingdom from Zain@Home in Kuwait, another technological
> country, since September, 2007. My friend Mahmood has both the
> mobile/portable WiMax and home WiMax, which also is his home telephone
> service and reports it works great anywhere in the kingdom. They had it
> throttled at 2Mbps when it came out but have since gone up to 10Mbps due
> to customer demand and competition from other carriers that saturate the
> kingdom.
>
> America will continue to pit company against company, technology against
> technology, just like it did TDMA/CDMA/GSM/EDGE/UPYOURS/EVDO and half a
> dozen other achronyms, wallowing in the mud....instead of the damned FCC
> doing its job and FORCING them to all use a compatible system ANY user's
> phone will run, like Europe's GSM rollout. Billions of dollars are
> wasted each year on incompatible phones/aircards/smartphones you can
> only use on 1 or two carriers....which allows the corporations to
> continue to give the finger to customer complaints as they are all
> colluding in providing the same level of poor service.
>
>
>
Good points. So which technology gets the nod in China?
On Mar 14, 12:27*pm, News <N...@Group.Name> wrote:
> carcarx wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 9:57 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carc...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote in
> >> <831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>> Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least for
> >>> the next 3 years.
> >> Whose estimates?
>
> > You can further your research here:
>
> >http://gigaom.com/2010/02/10/wimax-global-deployments/
>
> >>> There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be LTE
> >>> network for many years to come.
> >> I'll take that bet. *LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
> >> with all the major players behind it. *Sprint only has a narrow window
> >> of opportunity.
>
> > Of course you will, but you don't have any risk involved.
>
> Which way does China go? *LTE or Wimax?
Any way that does not involve Google or any other evil company.
FUTURE SHOCK: iPad Protected by 200 Patents wrote:
> On Mar 14, 12:27 pm, News <N...@Group.Name> wrote:
>> carcarx wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 9:57 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:16:36 -0800 (PST), carcarx <carc...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote in
>>>> <831c2d01-8b0f-402f-aef0-1bf65add0...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>> Estimates are that WiMax devices will exceed LTE devices at least for
>>>>> the next 3 years.
>>>> Whose estimates?
>>> You can further your research here:
>>> http://gigaom.com/2010/02/10/wimax-global-deployments/
>>>>> There are more WiMax networks around the world than there will be LTE
>>>>> network for many years to come.
>>>> I'll take that bet. LTE is gathering momentum very rapidly,
>>>> with all the major players behind it. Sprint only has a narrow window
>>>> of opportunity.
>>> Of course you will, but you don't have any risk involved.
>> Which way does China go? LTE or Wimax?
>
> Any way that does not involve Google or any other evil company.
>
>
By some standards that would preclude most local firms....
On 2010-03-14, News <News@Group.Name> wrote:
> Good points. So which technology gets the nod in China?
China used 2 2G standards (they had GSM, but were forced to add CDMA
in return for US approval for their WTO entry) and 3 3G standards
(EVDO, UMTS and TD-SCDMA, the only merit of the last being its freedom
from Qualcomm patents), so if they keep up the pattern it'll be
4 4G standards?
On Mar 14, 12:33*pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> ....instead of the damned FCC
> doing its job and FORCING them to all use a compatible system ANY user's
> phone will run, like Europe's GSM rollout. *Billions of dollars are
> wasted each year on incompatible phones/aircards/smartphones you can
> only use on 1 or two carriers....which allows the corporations to
> continue to give the finger to customer complaints as they are all
> colluding in providing the same level of poor service.
> Larry
Yes, forget free markets. Let have government regulate everything and
force technologies on wireless providers when they want to offer
something else and in some cases have no choice but to offer something
else. (Sweden, NMT, and cdma2000.)
Just ask Europeans about collusion on roaming rates. There in
exclusive GSM land the EC has had to clamp down on roaming rates due
to collusion (and lack of competition).
If government didn't regulate RF transmissions, nothing would work,
including your shitphones. Your NBC TV wouldn't play CBS or ABC. Your ABC
TV wouldn't play CNN or ESPN, which you'd have to have a separate TV for to
prevent churning. This absurdity would be reality if the TV networks had
their way. Digital Radio would only play the station of the company you
paid $300 ($50 with 2 year contract) and every radio station would be PAY
RADIO, not free, like your shitphones.
Yes, let's do away with the FCC and let the ****ing corporations just have
at the customers without any government telling them what they can't do to
the customers and see how you like it.
What a ****ing stupid idea.
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
At 15 Mar 2010 18:24:25 +0000 Larry wrote:
> carcarx <carcarx@hotmail.com> wrote in news:fef63c34-db60-4b29-9af3-
> 3fb611944c82@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Let have government regulate everything
>
> If government didn't regulate RF transmissions, nothing would work,
> including your shitphones. Your NBC TV wouldn't play CBS or ABC. Your
ABC
> TV wouldn't play CNN or ESPN, which you'd have to have a separate TV
for to
> prevent churning. This absurdity would be reality if the TV networks
had
> their way. Digital Radio would only play the station of the company
you
> paid $300 ($50 with 2 year contract) and every radio station would be
PAY
> RADIO, not free, like your shitphones.
>
> Yes, let's do away with the FCC and let the ****ing corporations just
have
> at the customers without any government telling them what they can't do
to
> the customers and see how you like it.
>
> What a ****ing stupid idea.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.
While a completely free market might create a little chaos initially, the
market eventually settles down to a defacto standard. In your TV
example, the less popular networks/channels would've eventually had to
transmit the same type of signal as the most popular, in order to get any
significant viewership/ad revenue- just like Lotus 123 was as responsible
for the IBM PC's success as anything, all stations would've transmitted
whatever signal could be received by whatever box Uncle Milty was
received by, since families wouldn't have bought three TV sets in those
days, but would've bought the one that received the "best" shows.
If the FCC had mandated a single digital phone standard, there's a
significant chance we'd be stuck with TDMA today- the "standard" that the
free market killed.
Without interference, the free market has given us two pretty good,
albeit incompatible, national systems, which, as we speak, are converging
on a single 4G standard without any decree from on high. Even if, say,
CDMA had been mandated, there's no guarantee that the carriers would
allow enough roaming for it to have made interoperability any easier than
today. (Go ask Sprint if you can use your fully-compatible Z6 on their
network; you can't!)
(In the interest of full disclosure, a Google groups search will probably
show I used to be on your side- right down to using the TV network example,
myself. I admit I was dead wrong, and wireless telephony turned out
pretty well without such meddling!)
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:yYynn.38863
$_v6.14207@newsfe08.iad:
> While a completely free market might create a little chaos initially,
the
> market eventually settles down to a defacto standard. In your TV
> example, the less popular networks/channels would've eventually had to
> transmit the same type of signal as the most popular, in order to get
any
> significant viewership/ad revenue- just like Lotus 123 was as
responsible
> for the IBM PC's success as anything, all stations would've
transmitted
> whatever signal could be received by whatever box Uncle Milty was
> received by, since families wouldn't have bought three TV sets in
those
> days, but would've bought the one that received the "best" shows.
>
>
No, I think what would have happened to TV would have been a monopoly as
the dominant station would have simply bought up the lesser stations to
eliminate any competition. They almost got away with it in the
newspaper business before the ANTI TRUST GOVERNMENT CONTROLS were put in
place. Without government controls on broadcasters, telling them how
many stations one company can own in a market, all stations would have
long ago been owned by one corporation, like GE, who can afford to put
anyone out of business if the government's FCC didn't forbid it.
Uncontrolled capitalism leads to monopolies with vast sums of money to
make sure noone else threatens them. Case in point, American Telephone
and Telegraph Corporation, who, unless the government had stepped in and
forbade it, would be your ONLY choice in LANDLINE telephone service and
would have NEVER LET ANY OTHER COMPANY THREATEN THEIR MONOPOLY ON
TELEPHONE SERVICE. Old people like me can tell you what it was like
before you were born under the breakup of Ma Bell's monopoly. You were
not allowed to connect ANYTHING to their phone system "to protect it".
Protect it my ***....to protect profits renting out PHONE EQUIPMENT!
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
And I can remember using the spreadsheet before Lotus. And what happened to
Betamax from competition?
Noah
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in message
news:yYynn.38863$_v6.14207@newsfe08.iad...
> At 15 Mar 2010 18:24:25 +0000 Larry wrote:
>> carcarx <carcarx@hotmail.com> wrote in news:fef63c34-db60-4b29-9af3-
>> 3fb611944c82@i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Let have government regulate everything
>>
>> If government didn't regulate RF transmissions, nothing would work,
>> including your shitphones. Your NBC TV wouldn't play CBS or ABC. Your
> ABC
>> TV wouldn't play CNN or ESPN, which you'd have to have a separate TV
> for to
>> prevent churning. This absurdity would be reality if the TV networks
> had
>> their way. Digital Radio would only play the station of the company
> you
>> paid $300 ($50 with 2 year contract) and every radio station would be
> PAY
>> RADIO, not free, like your shitphones.
>>
>> Yes, let's do away with the FCC and let the ****ing corporations just
> have
>> at the customers without any government telling them what they can't do
> to
>> the customers and see how you like it.
>>
>> What a ****ing stupid idea.
>
>
> The truth, as always, is somewhere in between.
>
> While a completely free market might create a little chaos initially, the
> market eventually settles down to a defacto standard. In your TV
> example, the less popular networks/channels would've eventually had to
> transmit the same type of signal as the most popular, in order to get any
> significant viewership/ad revenue- just like Lotus 123 was as responsible
> for the IBM PC's success as anything, all stations would've transmitted
> whatever signal could be received by whatever box Uncle Milty was
> received by, since families wouldn't have bought three TV sets in those
> days, but would've bought the one that received the "best" shows.
>
> If the FCC had mandated a single digital phone standard, there's a
> significant chance we'd be stuck with TDMA today- the "standard" that the
> free market killed.
>
> Without interference, the free market has given us two pretty good,
> albeit incompatible, national systems, which, as we speak, are converging
> on a single 4G standard without any decree from on high. Even if, say,
> CDMA had been mandated, there's no guarantee that the carriers would
> allow enough roaming for it to have made interoperability any easier than
> today. (Go ask Sprint if you can use your fully-compatible Z6 on their
> network; you can't!)
>
> (In the interest of full disclosure, a Google groups search will probably
> show I used to be on your side- right down to using the TV network
> example,
> myself. I admit I was dead wrong, and wireless telephony turned out
> pretty well without such meddling!)
>
>
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in
news:slrnhptq52.2r8c.g.kreme@cerebus.local:
> In message <Xns9D3CDBC09C9CFnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>> You were
>> not allowed to connect ANYTHING to their phone system "to protect
it".
>> Protect it my ***....to protect profits renting out PHONE EQUIPMENT!
>
> Even after the breakup this was largely true. I remember having an
> Argument with Mountain Bell/US West about my modem. They insisted that
> it was illegal for me to connect a Hayes Dual Standard to their phones
> lines because they were only required to allow '2400 baud'.
>
> Explaining to them, several times, that "bits per second != baud" was
> tedious and non-productive. Finally I just told them to sod-off. If
they
> thought they had a case they could take steps and I would go to the
PUC
> who, I was quite sure, understood that a 14.4Kbps modem was still
> 2400baud.
>
> I can't begin to tell you how happy I was to finally do away with
> landlines once and for all.
>
When Ma Bell was king, a group of us ham radio operators built a new VHF
repeater station at one of the ham's nice radio station transmitter
tower. We rented a phone line from Southern Bell for the site I'm sure
the phone company didn't know was to add telephone service for the ham
radio community on the repeater on 146.880 Mhz. You used the same tone
pairs push button phones used to control the repeater controller right
over the air, including connecting it to the phone line.
Ma Bell worked VERY hard for MANY years before the FCC would allow hams
to have repeater phone service as a convenience to the club members in
their cars....bypassing Ma Bell's IMTS, $4.50/minute "Carphone" service
in the process. Phone patches on ham radio were free. What WAS
required was to rent a "coupler", nothing more than a balanced
transformer in a box from Ma Bell for big money each month to "protect
the phone system", the same ******** line used to keep user-owned home
phones off the system for decades.
One of the club members was a high ranking manager of Southern Bell, one
of its engineering staff, and just gave the club a Bell coupler to put
on the repeater to make it "legal" and settle the requirement. HE
NEARLY LOST HIS JOB WHEN ONE OF THE PHONE TECHS NOTICED THE COUPLER
BETWEEN THE REPEATER CONTROLLER AND PHONE LINE AND HE FOUND OUT WE
WEREN'T PAYING FOR IT BY THE MONTH! They tracked him down like a pack
of bloodhounds looking for the escaped convict!
No, without government intervention to look out for the consumers, you
don't want telephone service that way.....
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
On Mar 15, 11:42*pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
In a sense you are right. Famous artists and photographers are now
excited about the iPad as a means of displaying their art work to
buyers. They love it! No one wants any old tablet for that but the
Apple iPad is perfect.
This is one segment of society that believes the iPad is a home run.
But then since you are still at the Etch-A-Sketch level this might be
beyond you Larry in a world of refinement and culture.
"FUTURE SHOCK: iPad Protected by 200 Patents" <vic.healey@gmail.com>
wrote in news:d464bf3f-c4e1-4a18-9067-2d91f6bcc0a6
@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 15, 11:42*pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>>
>> Larry
>
> In a sense you are right. Famous artists and photographers are now
> excited about the iPad as a means of displaying their art work to
> buyers. They love it! No one wants any old tablet for that but the
> Apple iPad is perfect.
>
> This is one segment of society that believes the iPad is a home run.
>
> But then since you are still at the Etch-A-Sketch level this might be
> beyond you Larry in a world of refinement and culture.
>
>
>
>
>
I think the MESSAGE, for us looking at the pictures, is that MaxiPad is
the iron-fist-controlled environment photographers are looking for where
you can LOOK at the pictures the guy is selling, BUT, cannot STEAL the
pictures off the device the guy is selling.....unlike any other tablet
device of this size, which has removable memory, a file manager capable
of COPY or MOVE commands and/or acts as a simply USB hard drive device
when plugged into a computer that ignores any DRM flags iTunes will
refuse to copy OFF the device ONTO a hard drive, somewhere.
It's very easy to see why ALL the media people like photographers, RIAA,
MPAA, software developers, game developers, television, radio, even
internet radio/tv, newspapers and magazine web publishers are going to
just LOVE the "piracy safe", locked up environment of the MaxiPad.
MaxiPad is better than the LCD photo displays sold at Wally World in
protecting media! LCD viewers all have SD card slots in them!
It's the same idea with Kindle for books.....MEDIA CONTROLLED DEVICE so
users can be constantly "subscribed" to the BOX OFFICE for constant
fleecing.
You're ALL being attached to THE CLOUD....SUBSCRIBE OR ELSE!
--
"iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
On Mar 16, 10:55*am, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> "FUTURE SHOCK: iPad Protected by 200 Patents" <vic.hea...@gmail.com>
> wrote in news:d464bf3f-c4e1-4a18-9067-2d91f6bcc0a6
> @d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 11:42*pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> >> Larry
>
> > In a sense you are right. Famous artists and photographers are now
> > excited about the iPad as a means of displaying their art work to
> > buyers. They love it! No one wants any old tablet for that but the
> > Apple iPad is perfect.
>
> > This is one segment of society that believes the iPad is a home run.
>
> > But then since you are still at the Etch-A-Sketch level this might be
> > beyond you Larry in a world of refinement and culture.
>
> I think the MESSAGE, for us looking at the pictures, is that MaxiPad is
> the iron-fist-controlled environment photographers are looking for where
> you can LOOK at the pictures the guy is selling, BUT, cannot STEAL the
> pictures off the device the guy is selling.....unlike any other tablet
> device of this size, which has removable memory, a file manager capable
> of COPY or MOVE commands and/or acts as a simply USB hard drive device
> when plugged into a computer that ignores any DRM flags iTunes will
> refuse to copy OFF the device ONTO a hard drive, somewhere.
>
> It's very easy to see why ALL the media people like photographers, RIAA,
> MPAA, software developers, game developers, television, radio, even
> internet radio/tv, newspapers and magazine web publishers are going to
> just LOVE the "piracy safe", locked up environment of the MaxiPad.
>
> MaxiPad is better than the LCD photo displays sold at Wally World in
> protecting media! *LCD viewers all have SD card slots in them!
>
> It's the same idea with Kindle for books.....MEDIA CONTROLLED DEVICE so
> users can be constantly "subscribed" to the BOX OFFICE for constant
> fleecing.
>
> You're ALL being attached to THE CLOUD....SUBSCRIBE OR ELSE!
>
> --
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
Thanks Larry ;>)
You could write advertising for Apple.
IMHO Good reasons for a honest person to buy an iPad.
"FUTURE SHOCK: iPad Protected by 200 Patents" <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:d464bf3f-c4e1-4a18-9067-2d91f6bcc0a6@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 15, 11:42 pm, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
In a sense you are right. Famous artists and photographers are now
excited about the iPad as a means of displaying their art work to
buyers. They love it! No one wants any old tablet for that but the
Apple iPad is perfect.
{{{
I don't know what you're smoking but while the iPad is of interested the
creative folk are not all that hot for any of the current hardware.
Most are very concerned about how the providers will play with their IPR via
proprietary formats/protocols.
BTW I've made my living in creative and engineering arts for near 50 years.
You may or may not know, that after they discovered how popular Visicalc was
they raised the price for it.
Noah
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D3CF11DA593Enoonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
> "Noah" <acpa@eritter.net> wrote in
> news:1268707393_4919@news.newsville.com:
>
>> And I can remember using the spreadsheet before Lotus. And what
>> happened to Betamax from competition?
>>
>>
>
> You talking about Visicalc from Dan Bricklin? Dan has his own website
> for it!
>
> http://www.danbricklin.com/visicalc.htm
>
> You can download a free copy for your PC and run it in the DOS window!
> Give it a try! Works neat.
>
> Visicalc was one of the programs that made Apple's computer useful!
>
> The Visicalc website above is a great look at the history of very early
> microcomputing, especially for Apple lovers.....
>
>
>
> --
> "iPad is to computing what Etch-A-Sketch is to art!"
>
> Larry
>
Clearwire 4G WiMax Doomed? companies already bailing... 
Linear Mode
