Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!

Oxford wrote:

> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
>
> catch me back in 5 years...


Better idea: hold your breath and let's see what happens.

No cheat-breathing, now, Oxie-moron. Hold it.

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
163999.16565620112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...

Bullshit.

>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.

More bullshit. Other than the mp3 market, Apple is a third rate player in
EVERY other market they do businees in.

>
> -
>

Oxford wrote:
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.

Two decades??? Hell, the iPhone will be obsolete, MORON.

"Oxford" <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-163999.16565620112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -
>

OK...... I'll NOT be holding my breath in the mean time.

Here's the deal..... the market is FAR from "static" and functions
VERY well. Therefore, your suppositions aren't based on any facts.

Therefore, they are completely false.

Oxford wrote:
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.

Always???

Lets see....

1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.

2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.

3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.

4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.

5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.

6) Taligent - Dead after a few years

7) EWorld - Dead after two years.

8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.

9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
$7,499 price been a factor?

10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.

11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.

12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Oxford wrote:
>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Always???
>
> Lets see....
>
> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>
> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>
> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>
> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>
> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>
> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>
> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>
> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>
> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
> $7,499 price been a factor?
>
> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>
> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>
> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>
>
>
>
>

You forgot Apple TV.

Paul Miner <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote in
news:jr47k31i4v9sru6tlrv46hb5gfbuesqq11@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Oxford
> <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>>
>>catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>>
>>trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>>
>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
> example.
>

No- it was the flat screen hi-def market! Oh, wait... that was everybody
BUT Apple.

Never mind.

In news:Xns99EEBBE9BB7B8isheforreal@216.196.97.142,
CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
> @nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>>
>> Always???
>>
>> Lets see....
>>
>> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>
>> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>
>> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>
>> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>
>> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>
>> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>
>> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>
>> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>
>> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
>> $7,499 price been a factor?
>>
>> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>
>> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>
>> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You forgot Apple TV.



Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
the market and killed off the competition?

In article
<linuxlovesosx-163999.16565620112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:

> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -

Market share in personal computers--much less than a majority.

Market share in pda's--haven't seen any Newtons around lately.

So far as I can tell, the only thing that comes even close to fitting
your description is the iPod.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article <HZGdnda2GKom_d7anZ2dnUVZ_vGinZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness-Net" <richard.no@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
> >
> >
>
> It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
> The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
>

As I read it, it's the desire of the responders to feel good about
themselves by dumping on a readily available target that's the main
driver for the responses.

But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article
<linuxlovesosx-A0AC9A.14150920112007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> > some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> > not for most.
> >
> > > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> > > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
> >
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.

Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
responding to, was:

"No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact."

Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
then?" That's a very different claim.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

IMHO IIRC wrote:

> In news:Xns99EEBBE9BB7B8isheforreal@216.196.97.142,
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
>
>>DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
>>@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>
>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>>>
>>>Always???
>>>
>>>Lets see....
>>>
>>>1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>>
>>>2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>>
>>>3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>>
>>>4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>>
>>>5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>>
>>>6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>>
>>>7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>>
>>>8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>>>Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>>
>>>9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
>>>$7,499 price been a factor?
>>>
>>>10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>>
>>>11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>>
>>>12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You forgot Apple TV.
>
>
>
>
> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
> the market and killed off the competition?
>


Undoubtedly, furiously screen-scraping material that he doesn't
understand, but believes to be responsive, with which to reply.

Or asking SJ ...

News <News@Groups.com> wrote in
news:gdWdnbeSerPavNnanZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@speakeasy.ne t:

>
>
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> In news:Xns99EEBBE9BB7B8isheforreal@216.196.97.142,
>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
>>
>>>DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
>>>@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes
>>>>>all.
>>>>
>>>>Always???
>>>>
>>>>Lets see....
>>>>
>>>>1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>>>
>>>>2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>>>
>>>>3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>>>
>>>>4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>>>
>>>>5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>>>
>>>>6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>>>
>>>>7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>>>
>>>>8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>>>>Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>>>
>>>>9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could
>>>>the $7,499 price been a factor?
>>>>
>>>>10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>>>
>>>>11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>>>
>>>>12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You forgot Apple TV.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices
>> dominated the market and killed off the competition?
>>
>
>
> Undoubtedly, furiously screen-scraping material that he doesn't
> understand, but believes to be responsive, with which to reply.

He probably is trying to get past the 100,000 links that beat the above
list into his head.

>
> Or asking SJ ...

How would he do that with his mouth full?

In article <bob-0A51DC.18065220112007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

> Apple introduced a big, slow, locked,
> expensive, proprietary phone

Wow -- you, too, are wrong on almost every point
it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
has close to that screen res.
it isn't particularly slow processing
locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
it isn't expensive compared to most phones with a high-res screen (and
it's totally foolish to compare to ANYTHING that doesn't have that --
it's the PRIME feature!)
Just what are you calling proprietary?

> into a market dominated by smaller, faster,
> less expensive models

smaller models are missing the major factor that it is built on -- the
one that says it's idiotic to compare to anything else.
Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
(I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
ripped off, right?)

It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
phone for that customer.
It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
they didn't make anything for that customer at all!

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> has close to that screen res.

iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
technology LCDs

> it isn't particularly slow processing
> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone

Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the worst
major carrier in the US.

> Just what are you calling proprietary?

As a phone, it isn't particularly proprietary, but as an Internet access
device it is. The Internet access device market is one in which the
entire firmware (not just selected pieces) is open source, and in which
people can, and do, produce and distribute their own modified firmware.

> Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
> iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
> good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.

I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
height (preferably 600, 768, or more). It is not "the real Internet" if
you have to zoom out to an unreadable level to see page layout, then zoom
in to read the text. It is not "the real Internet" if web designers have
to create special CSS to "optimize" for your device.

LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.

I can't get over how HUGE the pixels are in iPhone. Maybe you think that
that is decent image resolution, but to me it is like looking at a
newspaper.

> (I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
> more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
> ripped off, right?)

That argument doesn't wash. Three year old screen technology (and yes,
320x480 screens were on phones in Japan in 2004) isn't that expensive.

> It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
> phone for that customer.
> It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
> they didn't make anything for that customer at all!

These arguments may be correct. The problem is that certain cretins (most
notably Oxford) claim that iPhone is the be-all and end-all for everybody.

iPhone's legitimate market is that of a way-cool iPod that is also a phone
and an Internet access device; and its legitimate customers are those who
want a way-cool iPod that is also a phone and an Internet access device.

iPhone is not "the best phone". As a phone, it is mediocre. It is large,
it is expensive, it is locked, it is 2G-only, and its voice performance is
merely adequate. Other products do better in all of these categories.
Remember, we are talking about "as a phone" -- the screen resolution is
irrelevant here.

iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
kicks iPhone butt in this regard.

Case in point. iPod Touch, which started out as iPhone minus the phone,
is failing badly in the market. The question is not "if" Apple will
cancel it, but "when". It is overpriced, both as an iPod and as an
Internet access device. It deletes more than just the phone part of
iPhone, making it much less attractive. Clearly, Apple was worried that
iPod Touch would compete with iPhone, but in the process of making it
non-competitive with iPhone they made it non-competitive with the Nokia
N800.

iPhone is not a business tool at all. It lacks the business tools found
in smart phones. The few executives who tried iPhone as a substitute for
Blackberry quickly went back to their Blackberry.

Nobody, nobody!!, is disputing that iPhone is king of the "way-cool iPod
that is also a phone and an Internet access device" market. For people
who want that sort of thing, iPhone is perfect.

Nonetheless, iPhone is not a serious player in the phone market, nor the
Internet access device market, nor the business tool market. Nor is
iPhone a serious player in the teenager market (way too geeky for the
girls, way too nerdish for most of the boys). iPhone is a toy for adult,
primarily male, nerds who play with technological toys but don't really
*need* it.

iPhone will have at least one follow-on product. But it has pretty much
gotten as much market share as it is going to get; and the successor
iPhone will cannibalize previous sales more than gain new market.

As noted above, iPod Touch is toast, barring a major price drop (e.g.,
$175 for the 8GB version and $250 for the 16GB version). Expect to see
that kind of pricing at firesale if Apple does not buy them back.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
>> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything
>> that has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs
>

Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
kinds of ridiculous assertions.

Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
recently-introduced "iPhone killers."

But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.


>> it isn't particularly slow processing
>> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
>
> Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the
> worst major carrier in the US.

They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM, allowed them
to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone as a first-release
would have been a disaster. At least try to think it through.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post as your opening comments were
ludicrous. You are no better than Oxford, perhaps worse.


--
Mike

In article <alpine.OSX.0.99999.0711220930110.11691@pangtzu.pa nda.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> > it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> > has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs

There is a much smaller portable device with resolution of 960x640? What
is it? That would be more than twice the resolution of the Nokia E90,
which is more expensive than the iPhone and heavier.

....

> I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
> 320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
> pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
> height (preferably 600, 768, or more).

That would be very nice. What device that connects via the cell network
and is small enough to be about as convenient as the iPhone meets those
requirements?

The closest I could come was the E90, with 800x352, but it had enough
other problems so that I sent it back.

....

> LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
> iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
> on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.

Is that device a cell phone?

Also, I'm not sure how much good additional resolution does without
additional screen size.

....

> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.

But isn't a phone. And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net:


>
> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone
> as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try to think
> it through.

Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to the FCC
long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into development. They
also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T

In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:

> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.
>

The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution. It's
also heavier and more expensive. It does have a 3G connection--provided
you are in Europe where the frequency it uses is supported.

And the current software, at least by my experience, is pretty bad.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

CozmicDebris wrote:
> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>>
>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>> to think it through.
>
> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T

You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust any of
your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.

The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is AT&T.
Deal with it and stop the whining.


--
Mike

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>> Absurd.
>>
>
> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> It's also heavier and more expensive.

That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
nonetheless.

Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
which have twice or four times the screen resolution."


--
Mike

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post 5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net on
11/22/07 2:19 PM:

> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>> Absurd.
>>>
>>
>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
> phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
> released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
> iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
> nonetheless.
>
> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
> have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
> from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
> which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
>
Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his other
BS claims:

* Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.

* Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.

* I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.

* He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
pointed to.

He never managed to support any of those claims. Funny that, eh?

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in
news:C36B41EF.9A91F%CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com:

> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> stated in post
> 5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net on 11/22/07 2:19 PM:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman"
>>> <ask@for.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>>> Absurd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>>
>> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.
>> Indeed a phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice
>> the resolution, released with a glaring defect, can't really be used
>> to argue that the iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing
>> that, but I bring it up nonetheless.
>>
>> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone
>> and have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then
>> this comment from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge
>> compared to devices which have twice or four times the screen
>> resolution."
>>
> Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his
> other BS claims:
>


You probably could if he was responding to me, numbnuts.

Damn, Shit- you are clueless.

In article <5qma25F10qt2qU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <5qm2koF10ss2nU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> >> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
> >> Absurd.
> >>
> >
> > The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> > It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.

Pretty close.

480x320=153,600

800x352=281,600

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

"Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote in news:5qm8vqFvpqrdU1@mid.individual.net:

> CozmicDebris wrote:
>> "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>>> to think it through.
>>
>> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
>> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
>> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before
>> AT&T
>
> You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust
> any of your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.


And the amount of distress that will cause me will probably keep me awake
for the next few hours.

>
> The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is
> AT&T. Deal with it and stop the whining.
>
>


Who's whining, Rainman? The facts are well documented- Apple's original
network of choice was Verizon, and they were shown the door by Verizon.
The original iPhone was designed as a CDMA phone, and submitted to the FCC
as such. Only after being turned down did the GSM phone miraculously
appear.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
>> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
>> technology LCDs
> Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
> kinds of ridiculous assertions.
> Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
> recently-introduced "iPhone killers."

You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.
iPhone, by claiming to be an Internet access device instead of just a
phone, must be compared by the standards of mobile devices.

Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone, yet
has twice (640x480) the number of pixels as iPhone (320x480). Sony UX
series has a screen which is only slightly larger than that, but is a
whopping 1024x600 pixels.

The difference is density. iPhone has HUGE pixels, and looks like a
newspaper photo. Apple bought some leftover LCDs from that Japanese phone
makers used 3 years ago (I know all about 320x480 phones, they were common
in Japan in late 2004).

While you iPhone fanboys are oohing and aahing over your old technology
LCDs, people with real mobile devices are using real screens. So are
phone users in Japan.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
>> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
>> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
>> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
>> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
> But isn't a phone.

It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
Wi-Fi.

> And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.

iPhone 135g
N800 206g

In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In article
<alpine.WNT.0.99999.0711221917030.4308@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
> >> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> >> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> >> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> >> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
> > But isn't a phone.
>
> It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
> used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
> Wi-Fi.
>
> > And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.
>
> iPhone 135g
> N800 206g
>
> In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?

I looked it up on Amazon.com and it gave "Weight: 1.32 pounds" under
"technical details" (not under "shipping weight"). That's about four
times the iPhone's weight.

Checking another source it gives 7.3 oz, which is about your figure.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

Nor does it emerge from attempts to create a single authoritative voice
on scientific truth--which is part of what irritates me about the IPCC.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

Oxford wrote:
> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
> downfall!

And Vodafone won....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/21/i...any/index.html

Vodafone wins iPhone court ruling.
BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Deutsche Telekom AG's mobile unit said Wednesday
it would offer Apple Inc.'s popular iPhone without a contract to comply
with a court injunction issued after Vodafone challenged T-Mobile's
exclusive lock on the handset.

DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in news:mXs1j.22840$lD6.2185
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:

> Oxford wrote:
>> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
>> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
>> downfall!
>
> And Vodafone won....
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/21/i...any/index.html
>
> Vodafone wins iPhone court ruling.
> BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Deutsche Telekom AG's mobile unit said Wednesday
> it would offer Apple Inc.'s popular iPhone without a contract to comply
> with a court injunction issued after Vodafone challenged T-Mobile's
> exclusive lock on the handset.
>

But wait- Vodafone was going up against the huge corporate monster. Apple
always wins!!

The universe as Oxtard knows it just imploded.