Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in
news:linuxlovesosx-5F1CC2.16284802122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> >> You've got your head so far up your ass you can practically see
>> >> daylight again.
>> >
>> > but apple continued to develop telephony ideas throughout its
>> > history. knowledge navigator was a wireless phone concept, the
>> > shipping product GeoPort was a telephony device. Apple developed
>> > several software only phones, all long before the iPhone became so
>> > successful.
>>
>> So they have no experience with hardware phones, only second rate
>> software solutions. Ehanks for clarifying.
>
> ah, three hardware phones from apple...
>
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1377/...3bffa46ca8.jpg
>
> http://snipurl.com/1uim8
>
> http://www.memoirevive.ch/newsservic...ortvsAppleMode
m
> .J PG
Hmm- I saw a modem, fax machine and a PDA.
>
> apple as always built the best... so I guess the question is... why do
> you hate quality so much?
I love quality. I love functionality. And that is why I don't have an
Apple.
>
>> > the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone
>> > posting here,
>>
>> Not true.
>
> name someone better... bet you can't.
>
>> > so this knowledge confuses many people,
>>
>> No- your stupidity confuses many people.
>
> i only post facts, if you disagree, you are wrong. it's that simple.
No- you post the stupid rantings of someone wanting to have SJ's baby.
>
>> > mainly the so called
>> > "cell experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong
>> > interest in wireless communications.
>>
>> We don't understand it because it doesn't exist.
>
> oh, but watch a little video... which clearly proves my point. done
> around 1989, long before most cell companies were around...
I have a lifelong interest in space exploration. By your standards,
that would qualify me to run NASA.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8
>
>> > they simply have no idea... i do...
>> >
>>
>> You barely understand how to power your computer on.
>
> yes, and that is because on a Mac you only turn it on ONCE, then let
> the sophisticated hardware and software allow it to sleep / wake for
> the rest of its life...
THat's simply proof that computers have been made for the
developmentally challenged, such as yourself.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
> in Steve Jobs's world?
After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
Yes, who is Adele Goldberg and what did she do for Apple/SJ? You were
close with Milk and Cookies... but you might have been wrong if it was
actually Punch and Cookies.
So if you don't know and the world doesn't know, it confirms she did
nothing for Apple/SJ.
> Since you know Apple's history better than anyone posting here,
> CERTAINLY you know the answer to THIS one.
>
> Especially since the key to the answer was SPOON FED to you awhile back.
It was? Nobody on usenet knows, Adele certainly doesn't know, only YOU
know.
Please provide your long hidden secret... everyone is DYING to know!
I'm sure we'll all get a great chuckle when you finally tell everyone.
Oxford wrote:
> oh, but watch a little video... which clearly proves my point. done
> around 1989, long before most cell companies were around...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8
What point were you trying to prove.
All that video shows is a dream list of vaporware.
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>
> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
He did not want Jobs to see the famous Xerox tour... and would only do so if
under "orders". Atkinson has described that tour as an inspiration and as
something that helped them know they were already on the right track. Jobs
and company understood the importance of the graphical system far better
than did the Xerox management.
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-08F80E.19342702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <iphone-214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
> O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
>
>> > Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>> > in Steve Jobs's world?
>>
>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
>
> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
>
> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.
Why is he doing this search trying to figure this all out ?
Did he not say he knows all when it comes to apple ?
> In article <C378A06B.9C06C%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
>>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
>>
>> He did not want Jobs to see the famous Xerox tour... and would only do so if
>> under "orders". Atkinson has described that tour as an inspiration and as
>> something that helped them know they were already on the right track. Jobs
>> and company understood the importance of the graphical system far better
>> than did the Xerox management.
>
> close.
>
> Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed
> the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY.
And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did
*anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they
pretty much created the desktop publishing industry.
>
> Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny.
Support?
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>
> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
That's not true, tard boy. Many of us know the answer.
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8
>>
>> What point were you trying to prove.
>>
>> All that video shows is a dream list of vaporware.
>
> not sure what you mean, apple has every portion in place except for the
> foldable screen and a bit of AI.
And it is vaporware.
>
> wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice rec is
> there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there.
>
> and apple/sj popularized it all...
Sorry, stupid. Apple did not popularize wireless, www, cameras, voice
recording or chat.
In article <elmop-08F80E.19342702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <iphone-214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
> O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
> > > in Steve Jobs's world?
> >
> > After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
> > of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
>
> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
>
> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.
Wikipedia entry:
Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or
co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's
she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to
give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would
order her to, which they eventually did.
She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois.
In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing
Machinery.
> In article <elmop-08F80E.19342702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <iphone-214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
>> O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>>>
>>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
>>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
>>
>> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
>> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
>> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
>>
>> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.
>
> Wikipedia entry:
>
> Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or
> co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's
> she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to
> give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would
> order her to, which they eventually did.
>
> She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
> Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois.
> In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing
> Machinery.
I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
(grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
Apple. The value of the demo is under some debate, but clearly it had some
influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a
whole.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
In article <C378D111.9C0CF%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post
> ddfr-307CA2.19501502122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 8:50 PM:
>
> > In article <elmop-08F80E.19342702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <iphone-214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
> >> O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
> >>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
> >>>
> >>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
> >>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
> >>
> >> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
> >> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
> >> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
> >>
> >> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.
> >
> > Wikipedia entry:
> >
> > Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or
> > co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's
> > she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to
> > give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would
> > order her to, which they eventually did.
> >
> > She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
> > Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois.
> > In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing
> > Machinery.
>
> I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
> (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
> Apple. The value of the demo is under some debate, but clearly it had some
> influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a
> whole.
Hard to tell.
As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
Apple actually played.
> In article <C378D111.9C0CF%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post
>> ddfr-307CA2.19501502122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 8:50 PM:
>>
>>> In article <elmop-08F80E.19342702122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
>>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <iphone-214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
>>>> O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play
>>>>>> in Steve Jobs's world?
>>>>>
>>>>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
>>>>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
>>>>
>>>> You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking
>>>> your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you,
>>>> YOU haven't come up with the answer.
>>>>
>>>> Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia entry:
>>>
>>> Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or
>>> co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's
>>> she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to
>>> give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would
>>> order her to, which they eventually did.
>>>
>>> She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California.
>>> Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois.
>>> In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing
>>> Machinery.
>>
>> I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
>> (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
>> Apple. The value of the demo is under some debate, but clearly it had some
>> influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a
>> whole.
>
> Hard to tell.
>
> As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
> projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
> Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
> hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
> Apple actually played.
Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers...
we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the
credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively
similar had they not.
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
In article <C378EDCD.9C119%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
> > projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
> > Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
> > hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
> > Apple actually played.
>
> Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers...
> we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the
> credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively
> similar had they not.
>
Some of the credit. The original work was done at Xerox, and Atari and
Amiga were selling GUI machines at about the same time as Apple,
although they didn't up being as successful.
> In article <C378EDCD.9C119%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar
>>> projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox
>>> Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple
>>> hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role
>>> Apple actually played.
>>
>> Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers...
>> we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the
>> credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively
>> similar had they not.
>
> Some of the credit.
Of course. Fair enough.
> The original work was done at Xerox, and Atari and Amiga were selling GUI
> machines at about the same time as Apple, although they didn't up being as
> successful.
And let us not forget our friends at Microsoft: they have helped push the
GUI in some ways as well... though they clearly were not at the forefront
really pushing things. At least not on their own OS, anyway.
> In article <C378AE84.9C082%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed
>>> the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY.
>>
>> And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did
>> *anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they
>> pretty much created the desktop publishing industry.
>>>
>>> Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny.
>>
>> Support?
>>
>
> Plenty. Just read the record.
>
> I'm waiting for Oxtard to go back to what he was SPOON-FED and read it.
>
> Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you?
>
You sure spew a lot of accusations when you cannot support your claims. Oh
well.
--
Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers
> In article <C378D111.9C0CF%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who
>> (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from
>> Apple.
>
> That's half the answer.
>
And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add
anything of value, eh?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
> In article <C3796EAC.9C1F1%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's half the answer.
>>>
>> And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add
>> anything of value, eh?
>
> Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach
> into the archives and tell everyone...
>
Interesting excuse... basically you want others to read your mind to figure
out what *you* think is important. Heck, Adele Goldberg has a pretty large
influence in many areas, so what one thing you are thinking about is pretty
much a guessing gsme. SmallTalk and its influence on AppleScript /
HyperCard? Is that what you are thinking? Who knows... you are simply not
willing to say unless people play your game.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
> like a hot potato.
Internet tablets such as the Nokia N800 already support VoIP... and I'd defy
you to find many people who routinely use one who aren't also carrying a cell
phone. The landscape is certainly set to change in the next, say, five years
but today for a serious phone user (who cares primarily about reliability and
not so much about the cost) wirelesss VoIP alone isn't viable.
> Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network
> for which it has no voice ambitions.
Anyone would see through that -- once you already have a data *network* in
place, adding the extensions to support prioritized traffic (needed to get
decent performance for VoIP) is easy.
In article <elmop-E16C00.12324403122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <C3796EAC.9C1F1%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's half the answer.
> > >
> > And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add
> > anything of value, eh?
>
> Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach
> into the archives and tell everyone...
Don't you ever get tired of boring everyone to death?
> In article <C3799BD7.9C25F%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>>> Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach
>>> into the archives and tell everyone...
>>>
>> Interesting excuse... basically you want others to read your mind to figure
>> out what *you* think is important.
>
> Not at all.
>
>> Heck, Adele Goldberg has a pretty large influence in many areas, so what one
>> thing you are thinking about is pretty much a guessing gsme. SmallTalk and
>> its influence on AppleScript / HyperCard? Is that what you are thinking?
>> Who knows... you are simply not willing to say unless people play your game.
>
> That Oxtard misses it, and that you miss it, is your problem.
Gee, I even played your guessing game. Face it: you are merely playing it
to get attention...
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
>This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
>is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
>Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
>iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
>like a hot potato.
>AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
>they need to play nice or end up like IBM.
Glad that iphones are still regarded purely as a gimmick here in Australia.
They're a load of shit.
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:59:13 -0700, Oxford
<linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
>This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
>is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
>news:linuxlovesosx-432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>
>
>> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
>> is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
>>
>
>> AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
>> they need to play nice or end up like IBM.
>>
>> Apple will be joining Google in
>> bidding.
>
>First - Oxy is quoting a BLOG - another fanboy's OPINION
>Far from fact...
>
>This Oxy insane fantasy that "Apple is a much stronger company" is VERY
>telling
>of just how delusional our nut boy is - anyone that would state this
>obviously isn't
>in touch with reality. Or doesn't have enough brains to look at the
>financials.
>
>Then - as I posted yesterday - Google is NOT going to have partners in the
>bidding.
>
>http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente..._spectrum.html
>
>"Google will file an application to participate in the 700MHz auction on
>Monday, the
>company said in a news release. Google's application will not include any
>partners."
>
>And, unlike Oxy, **I** post information from reliable sources - not some
>fanboy blog...
>Care to verify the story?? Below may help...
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=Googl...e7&rlz=1I7DKUS
>
>
>
>
>
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:21:39 -0800, "Cubit" <no@not.not> wrote:
>Lawyers.
>Contract terms.
>
>"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
>news:linuxlovesosx-432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
>> is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
>>
>> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
>> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
>> like a hot potato.
>>
>> AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
>> they need to play nice or end up like IBM.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Important Parts Here:
>>
>> What I believe is troubling the relationship between AT&T and Apple is
>> the upcoming auction for 700-MHz wireless spectrum and AT&T's discovery
>> that -- as I have predicted for weeks -- Apple will be joining Google in
>> bidding. AT&T thought its five-year "exclusive" iPhone agreement with
>> Apple would have precluded such a bid, but that just shows how poorly
>> Randall Stephenson understood Steve Jobs. Steve always hurts his friends
>> to see how much they really love him, so AT&T probably should have
>> expected this kind of corporate body blow.
>>
>> To his credit, Stephenson took the dispute to the streets this way,
>> showing he isn't intimidated by Jobs. It was a bold and rare response
>> for big business and was definitely unexpected by Cupertino, which won't
>> underestimate AT&T again.
>>
>> I'm not privy to any inside details here, but there are two ways I can
>> see Jobs rationalizing his auction position and they aren't necessarily
>> exclusive. He could claim to intend the 700-MHz auction participation as
>> a pure investment, just a good use for the $30+ billion Apple has
>> squirreled away.
>>
>> Nah.
>>
>> Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network
>> for which it has no voice ambitions. Maybe all MacBooks will soon get
>> 700-MHz access cards.
>>
>> This excuse rings truer, but of course it would still be a scam on
>> Steve's part.
>>
>> It would not surprise me at all if this were the case and when the
>> 700-MHz network is finally up and running Jobs claims astonishment that
>> the most popular data application is Voice over IP, a direct competitor
>> to AT&T Wireless. This may be part of the reason why Apple has been so
>> slow approving third-party iPhone applications. Wouldn't your first
>> application be a VoIP client?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Full Article Here:
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/1uh83
>>
>> -
>
>
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 04:25:21 +0000 (UTC), Craig Ian Dewick
<craig@lios.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> writes:
>
>>This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T
>>is now scared of Apple and its business intentions...
>
>>Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
>>iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
>>like a hot potato.
>
>>AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so
>>they need to play nice or end up like IBM.
>
>Glad that iphones are still regarded purely as a gimmick here in Australia.
>They're a load of shit.
>
>Craig.
>--
>Craig Dewick - http://lios.apana.org.au/~craighttp://jedi.apana.org.au/~craig
> Email to craig.foo@bar.lios.apana.org.au - craig.dewick.foo@bar.gmail.com
> Always striving for a secure long-term future in an insecure short-term world
> Have you exported a crypto system today? Do your bit to undermine the NSA.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:54:26 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
>news:linuxlovesosx-432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY
>> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network
>> like a hot potato.
>
>Internet tablets such as the Nokia N800 already support VoIP... and I'd defy
>you to find many people who routinely use one who aren't also carrying a cell
>phone. The landscape is certainly set to change in the next, say, five years
>but today for a serious phone user (who cares primarily about reliability and
>not so much about the cost) wirelesss VoIP alone isn't viable.
>
>> Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network
>> for which it has no voice ambitions.
>
>Anyone would see through that -- once you already have a data *network* in
>place, adding the extensions to support prioritized traffic (needed to get
>decent performance for VoIP) is easy.
>
>
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:56:14 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article <C378AE84.9C082%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed
>> > the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY.
>>
>> And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did
>> *anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they
>> pretty much created the desktop publishing industry.
>> >
>> > Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny.
>>
>> Support?
>>
>
>Plenty. Just read the record.
>
>I'm waiting for Oxtard to go back to what he was SPOON-FED and read it.
>
>Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you?
>
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:48:36 -0700, Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:
>"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post
>elmop-1A461D.20361602122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/2/07 6:36 PM:
>
>> In article <C378A06B.9C06C%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>> Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's
>>>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep.
>>>
>>> He did not want Jobs to see the famous Xerox tour... and would only do so if
>>> under "orders". Atkinson has described that tour as an inspiration and as
>>> something that helped them know they were already on the right track. Jobs
>>> and company understood the importance of the graphical system far better
>>> than did the Xerox management.
>>
>> close.
>>
>> Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed
>> the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY.
>
>And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did
>*anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they
>pretty much created the desktop publishing industry.
>>
>> Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny.
>
>Support?
>
>
>--
>What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
>
Re: Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so... 
Linear Mode
