In article <4ac690d7$0$89385$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
David Moyer <davmoy@world.com> wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch
> > > than it is among those who did not have to switch (64 vs. 72 on the CFI
> > > scale).
> >
> > What it all boils down to is how much money AT&T will pay Apple for
> > Apple not to bring the CDMA iPhone to market.
>
> a CDMA iPhone will never happen, Apple wouldn't be interested in
> maintaining a phone that would be obsolete in 24-36 months. apple is
> very conservative when making decisions. they will wait for VZ to catch
> up to the rest of the world with LTE/G4.
Doesn't the China Mobile iPhone use CDMA?
Anyways, some analyst said that iPhone market share would more than
double if offered on Verizon in addition to AT&T. He cited 136%
increase in France after a second carrier was added in that country. In
the UK, it's about to go on Vodaphone in addition to O2.
There might be more cannibalization as a lot of AT&T iPhone users may
simply switch.
As for Verizon, they're not going to migrate their customer base to LTE
overnight. It will take some time for them to build up LTE coverage and
to distribute LTE handsets to replace CDMA. They haven't even started
LTE deployment yet, have they?
> What does it do that generates so much traffic? Anyone on any service with
> an aircard plugged into a real computer is going to be the data hog....like
> me on Cricket watching Livestation TV at 600Kbps or video.google.com hour
> long video clips. Per cell tower there aren't that many iPhones in range,
> except in the huge cities, I suppose.
Just imagine how much more traffic will be generated once tethering is
enabled, unless AT&T makes tethering so expensive that it doesn't become
widely used.
Perhaps Verizon was being practical when they turned down the iPhone two
years ago.
It's unclear when Verizon will get an iPhone. They may wait until LTE,
Apple may offer them a deal they can't refuse on a CDMA/EVDO model, or
AT&T may offer Apple a deal they can't refuse for longer exclusivity.
One thing is certain, the AT&T exclusivity is hurting iPhone sales in
the U.S. in a big way.
One thing that isn't holding back a Verizon iPhone is the need to switch
to a CDMA radio. This is a trivial change, and you can be sure that
there are already prototypes that have been made.
No. China Unicom runs both a GSM and a CDMA network. They launched the
CDMA network to make better use of the limited spectrum. China Mobile,
AFAIK, is GSM only.
Many Asian countries have both CDMA and GSM networks, India and China
are the biggies, but many densely populated small countries also have
launched CDMA networks, like Taiwan and Israel. South Korea has CDMA but
not GSM.
As an aside, one PagePlus user says that his CDMA prepaid phone roamed
in China on China Unicom, even though officially PagePlus doesn't do
international roaming (it works somewhat in Canada, also unofficially).
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:37:42 -0700, "Ness-Net"
<richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:df84c5dvl1lgosvoqfnhsq52p4rulttc0m@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote in <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>
>>>I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish they'd do
>>>a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that aren't willing
>>>to give up coverage could use the iPhone without having to carry a
>>>second Verizon network phone for those areas with no AT&T coverage.
>>
>> In general, AT&T coverage is actually comparable to Verizon coverage.
>> Both carriers have holes and gaps. One is not significantly better than
>> the other overall. What matters is coverage in your particular areas.
>> To those of us without your anti-AT&T agenda that is.
>>
>>>Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>>>iPhone is because of AT&T.
>>
>> Yet another made up fantasy, without support of any kind, as usual.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>>
>> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
>> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
>
>Half of iPhone owners would drop AT&T like a bad habit
>New survey results show predictable love for iPhone and loathing of AT&T
>http://www.networkworld.com/communit..._am_2009-10-01
>
>
>We knew already of the widespread dissatisfaction with AT&T among iPhone owners, of course, but there's something to be
>said for attaching reliable numbers to conventional wisdom.
>
>According to a CFI Group Smartphone Satisfaction Study released this morning:
>
>50 percent of iPhone customers would like to switch providers;
>
>40 percent of iPhone users switched providers just to get the iPhone in the first place;
>
>Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch than it is among those who did not have to switch
>(64 vs. 72 on the CFI scale).
>
>iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>
Hardly a difference.
Other Smartphone Users are not the power users iPhone users are so its
Apple vs Oranges.
ATT is the worst carrier except for all the others.
Verizon is famous for its billing snafus, and its removal of
manufacturers features.
and T-Mobile and Sprint are saddled with 1900 Mhz, guaranteeing Dead
spots, and lack of indoor coverage; and failing hardware from
overheating; braodcasting at the higher frequency.
Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:vbkec5tc60l393lcm3f5hgd4g9s5lhc49b@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:37:42 -0700, "Ness-Net"
> <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:df84c5dvl1lgosvoqfnhsq52p4rulttc0m@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:21:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote in <4ac1df55$0$1616$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>>>
>>>>I'm happy to see Apple doing so well in this recession. I wish
>>>>they'd do a Verizon version of the iPhone so that those of us that
>>>>aren't willing to give up coverage could use the iPhone without
>>>>having to carry a second Verizon network phone for those areas with
>>>>no AT&T coverage.
>>>
>>> In general, AT&T coverage is actually comparable to Verizon
>>> coverage. Both carriers have holes and gaps. One is not
>>> significantly better than the other overall. What matters is
>>> coverage in your particular areas. To those of us without your
>>> anti-AT&T agenda that is.
>>>
>>>>Analysts say that the number one reason consumers resist buying an
>>>>iPhone is because of AT&T.
>>>
>>> Yet another made up fantasy, without support of any kind, as usual.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> John <http:/navasgroup.com>
>>>
>>> If the iPhone is really so impressive,
>>> why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
>>
>>Half of iPhone owners would drop AT&T like a bad habit
>>New survey results show predictable love for iPhone and loathing of
>>AT&T
>>http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/45757?
source=NWWNLE_nlt_dail
>>y_am_2009-10-01
>>
>>
>>We knew already of the widespread dissatisfaction with AT&T among
>>iPhone owners, of course, but there's something to be said for
>>attaching reliable numbers to conventional wisdom.
>>
>>According to a CFI Group Smartphone Satisfaction Study released this
>>morning:
>>
>>50 percent of iPhone customers would like to switch providers;
>>
>>40 percent of iPhone users switched providers just to get the iPhone
>>in the first place;
>>
>>Satisfaction with AT&T is lower among those who were forced to switch
>>than it is among those who did not have to switch (64 vs. 72 on the
>>CFI scale).
>>
>>iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
>>other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
>>
>
>
> Hardly a difference.
>
> Other Smartphone Users are not the power users iPhone users are so its
> Apple vs Oranges.
Only because other Smartphones are able to do more work with native
applications than iPhone users, who must essentially connect to the
internet to do anything.
>
> ATT is the worst carrier except for all the others.
Not according to the second half 2009 data being compiled by JD Power
and a number of other independent studies. It is THE worst.
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:16:06 -0500, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote in
<slrnhccdam.4e.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>:
>On 2009-10-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> This is what helps Verizon maintain their ratings since coverage is so
>> much more available. Even in the fringe areas of urban settings, Verizon
>> is superior. I was up on the southern part of Skyline Boulevard in the
>> Santa Cruz mountains last week and I had both a Verizon phone and a
>> phone on AT&T's network. The Verizon phone had coverage. The AT&T phone
>> did not. The same situation occurs all over the San Francisco Bay Area.
>I agree that AT&T coverage in the mountains is inferior,
Not really true, as the carrier's own coverage maps show.
I was recently geocaching with friends along Skyline, and the Verizon
coverage was no better overall than AT&T and T-Mobile. All carriers had
holes, sometimes in the same area, sometimes in different areas.
>but these
>days if you want to do a fair comparison (I realize this might not
>be the point) I think you need to have a 3G phone.
Correct. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Steven's problems are
personal agenda, making things up to suit his personal agenda, and
perhaps inferior equipment as well. In my case the phones were all
better phones less than a year old.
>While the phones
>I have don't have the right knobs to prove it, I've seen some
>evidence that AT&T has been moving their 3G service down to 850 MHz,
Also correct.
>My house is in Palo Alto, by the way, in a neighborhood where they
>can't seem to find many places to put cell towers. My Verizon phones
>show 1 bar inside the house but work reliably anyway; AT&T 3G now shows
>3 bars and works reliably, though I think that phone has bar-inflation
>since when it shows 1 bar it barely works.
There is no standardization of what signal bars mean, so they are only a
very rough guide, and a phone may be reporting more bars when a
different carrier has a stronger signal it can't use (except for 911).
>The best service by far is
>T-Mobile 2G (I don't have a 3G phone to try).
T-Mobile 2G and 3G coverage in the Bay Area is very good.
>I think what is "best"
>is really specific to where you are.
Bingo!
>> Even Obama uses a Blackberry on Verizon.
Meaningless.
>A lot of people use Verizon. Even more don't.
Not in Steven's Universe.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2009-10-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> This is what helps Verizon maintain their ratings since coverage is so
>> much more available. Even in the fringe areas of urban settings, Verizon
>> is superior. I was up on the southern part of Skyline Boulevard in the
>> Santa Cruz mountains last week and I had both a Verizon phone and a
>> phone on AT&T's network. The Verizon phone had coverage. The AT&T phone
>> did not. The same situation occurs all over the San Francisco Bay Area.
>
> I agree that AT&T coverage in the mountains is inferior, but these
> days if you want to do a fair comparison (I realize this might not
> be the point) I think you need to have a 3G phone.
I don't think that's fair at all. Even with smart phones, most people
still would prefer a carrier that at least provides voice coverage in
more areas.
> My house is in Palo Alto, by the way, in a neighborhood where they
> can't seem to find many places to put cell towers. My Verizon phones
> show 1 bar inside the house but work reliably anyway; AT&T 3G now shows
> 3 bars and works reliably, though I think that phone has bar-inflation
> since when it shows 1 bar it barely works. The best service by far is
> T-Mobile 2G (I don't have a 3G phone to try). I think what is "best"
> is really specific to where you are.
Shallow Alto probably has more of an aversion to ugly towers in
neighborhoods than most cities.
In article <Xns9C995EBA4FF06blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
> Only because other Smartphones are able to do more work with native
> applications than iPhone users, who must essentially connect to the
> internet to do anything.
In article <4ac71ebc$0$1675$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Verizon was being practical when they turned down the iPhone two
> years ago.
or perhaps apple turned them down. maybe it was mutual. you don't know
what transpired, nor does anyone else outside of apple and verizon
executives.
> It's unclear when Verizon will get an iPhone. They may wait until LTE,
they will wait for lte.
> Apple may offer them a deal they can't refuse on a CDMA/EVDO model, or
> AT&T may offer Apple a deal they can't refuse for longer exclusivity.
> One thing is certain, the AT&T exclusivity is hurting iPhone sales in
> the U.S. in a big way.
apple is selling all they can make. they're not hurting.
> One thing that isn't holding back a Verizon iPhone is the need to switch
> to a CDMA radio. This is a trivial change, and you can be sure that
> there are already prototypes that have been made.
it's not as trivial as you seem to think, and the only cdma prototypes
that may have existed would have been early in the project before they
committed to at&t.
In article <vbkec5tc60l393lcm3f5hgd4g9s5lhc49b@4ax.com>, Ron
<ron.clifford@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> and T-Mobile and Sprint are saddled with 1900 Mhz, guaranteeing Dead
> spots, and lack of indoor coverage; and failing hardware from
> overheating; braodcasting at the higher frequency.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:031020091303347522% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9C995EBA4FF06blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
> Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
>
>> Only because other Smartphones are able to do more work with native
>> applications than iPhone users, who must essentially connect to the
>> internet to do anything.
>
> totally false.
>
In article <Xns9C99747388454blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
> >> Only because other Smartphones are able to do more work with native
> >> applications than iPhone users, who must essentially connect to the
> >> internet to do anything.
> >
> > totally false.
>
> Totally correct.
it's absolutely false. iphones and ipod touches can do quite a bit
without any internet connection at all. not all apps require a full
time data connection.
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:53:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ac71ebc$0$1675$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Perhaps Verizon was being practical when they turned down the iPhone two
>years ago.
What actually happened is that Verizon lost the beauty contest to AT&T,
which has proved to be quite painful. A big handicap for Verizon was
CDMA2000, which is mostly USA-centric.
>One thing that isn't holding back a Verizon iPhone is the need to switch
>to a CDMA radio. This is a trivial change, ...
Not true.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:31:49 -0500, Ron <ron.clifford@peoplepc.com>
wrote in <vbkec5tc60l393lcm3f5hgd4g9s5lhc49b@4ax.com>:
>and T-Mobile and Sprint are saddled with 1900 Mhz, guaranteeing Dead
>spots, and lack of indoor coverage; and failing hardware from
>overheating; braodcasting at the higher frequency.
Total nonsense.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
In article <Xns9C98ECE225A80noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, noone@home.com
says...
>
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4ac610bb$0$1629
> $742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
> > Perhaps if Verizon had the kind of 3G traffic that the iPhone is
> > generating then their data network would be as bogged down as AT&T's,
> >
>
> Why does Iphone generate so much traffic? It has no removable storage, a
> marginal web browser that doesn't support Flash and most streaming
> protocols, there's no heavy downloading like usenet binaries or P2P as
> there's limited space to put it on that can't be swapped.
What about all of those 85,000 apps? I have to believe some of them
might be heavy bandwidth users.
> iPhone customers are less satisfied with AT&T than are the carrier's
> other smartphone users (69 vs. 73).
The real question for Apple is how many new iPhone sales could they
generate if they offered a CDMA version through Verizon. The iPhone has
about a 10% market share for postpaid AT&T handsets. If Verizon was able
to sell a similar number that would be about 9 million more iPhone
sales, but in reality the subscribers that really wanted an iPhone
already left Verizon, so Apple could not count on 10% market share at
Verizon.
Apple is very upset with AT&T right now for hurting the iPhone
experience with its network problems. I loved the headline on one
article about MMS finally coming to the iPhone, "AT&T to Welcome iPhone
Users to 2003 Tomorrow." It will take a lot of money to keep exclusivity
for AT&T.
In article <4ac799b4$0$1597$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The real question for Apple is how many new iPhone sales could they
> generate if they offered a CDMA version through Verizon.
no, the real question is whether it's worthwhile to bother with cdma
when lte is coming in a couple of years.
> Apple is very upset with AT&T right now for hurting the iPhone
> experience with its network problems.
apple has stated that they are very happy with at&t.
> I loved the headline on one
> article about MMS finally coming to the iPhone, "AT&T to Welcome iPhone
> Users to 2003 Tomorrow." It will take a lot of money to keep exclusivity
> for AT&T.
apple chose to build the apps store instead of mms. while it would have
been nice to have mms early on, that turned out to be a very good
choice. even google doesn't think mms is all that important.
SMS wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2009-10-02, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> This is what helps Verizon maintain their ratings since coverage is
>>> so much more available. Even in the fringe areas of urban settings,
>>> Verizon is superior. I was up on the southern part of Skyline
>>> Boulevard in the Santa Cruz mountains last week and I had both a
>>> Verizon phone and a phone on AT&T's network. The Verizon phone had
>>> coverage. The AT&T phone did not. The same situation occurs all over
>>> the San Francisco Bay Area.
>>
>> I agree that AT&T coverage in the mountains is inferior, but these
>> days if you want to do a fair comparison (I realize this might not
>> be the point) I think you need to have a 3G phone.
>
> I don't think that's fair at all. Even with smart phones, most people
> still would prefer a carrier that at least provides voice coverage in
> more areas.
>
>> My house is in Palo Alto, by the way, in a neighborhood where they
>> can't seem to find many places to put cell towers. My Verizon phones
>> show 1 bar inside the house but work reliably anyway; AT&T 3G now shows
>> 3 bars and works reliably, though I think that phone has bar-inflation
>> since when it shows 1 bar it barely works. The best service by far is
>> T-Mobile 2G (I don't have a 3G phone to try). I think what is "best"
>> is really specific to where you are.
>
> Shallow Alto probably has more of an aversion to ugly towers in
> neighborhoods than most cities.
Well, if "Shallow Alto" is using zoning rules to exclude cell phone
towers or to exclude them from optimum placements, the citizens have no
one but themselves to blame. You can't have it both ways!
It is possible to make a cell phone tower look like a rather odd looking
tree. ISTR seeing such a "tree" beside the Pennsylvania Turnpike
(Eastern end).
nospam wrote:
> In article <4ac71ebc$0$1675$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Verizon was being practical when they turned down the iPhone two
>> years ago.
>
> or perhaps apple turned them down. maybe it was mutual. you don't know
> what transpired, nor does anyone else outside of apple and verizon
> executives.
>
>> It's unclear when Verizon will get an iPhone. They may wait until LTE,
>
> they will wait for lte.
>
>> Apple may offer them a deal they can't refuse on a CDMA/EVDO model, or
>> AT&T may offer Apple a deal they can't refuse for longer exclusivity.
>> One thing is certain, the AT&T exclusivity is hurting iPhone sales in
>> the U.S. in a big way.
>
> apple is selling all they can make. they're not hurting.
>
>> One thing that isn't holding back a Verizon iPhone is the need to switch
>> to a CDMA radio. This is a trivial change, and you can be sure that
>> there are already prototypes that have been made.
>
> it's not as trivial as you seem to think, and the only cdma prototypes
> that may have existed would have been early in the project before they
> committed to at&t.
I don't see the difficulty with CDMA. VZW uses it and apparently has no
problem offering a wide variety of handsets!
Converting the rest of an iPhone to work with CDMA "guts" might be a
little difficult but I suspect that relatively few people are
sufficiently familiar with the details to offer a meaningful opinion.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:031020091338273082% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9C99747388454blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
> Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Only because other Smartphones are able to do more work with native
>> >> applications than iPhone users, who must essentially connect to the
>> >> internet to do anything.
>> >
>> > totally false.
>>
>> Totally correct.
>
> it's absolutely false. iphones and ipod touches can do quite a bit
> without any internet connection at all. not all apps require a full
> time data connection.
>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:s63fc59nmf8is8htseb535jc6q45n1h01s@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:53:15 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4ac71ebc$0$1675$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Perhaps Verizon was being practical when they turned down the iPhone two
>>years ago.
>
> What actually happened is that Verizon lost the beauty contest to AT&T,
> which has proved to be quite painful. A big handicap for Verizon was
> CDMA2000, which is mostly USA-centric.
>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:e69fc5t8v781758bj4a8b08lhmpoi1d3jc@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:37:53 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in <4ac799b4$0$1597$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>>Apple is very upset with AT&T right now for hurting the iPhone
>>experience with its network problems. ...
>
> Proof? Oh wait ... my mistake ... you made that up too.
>
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:09:38 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in
<_K6dndGfpaWZMlrXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@giganews.com>:
>SMS wrote:
>> Shallow Alto probably has more of an aversion to ugly towers in
>> neighborhoods than most cities.
>
>Well, if "Shallow Alto" is using zoning rules to exclude cell phone
>towers or to exclude them from optimum placements, ...
Can't do that under current Federal law.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
In article <BK-dnV19JtEkLVrXnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Richard B.
Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> Converting the rest of an iPhone to work with CDMA "guts" might be a
> little difficult but I suspect that relatively few people are
> sufficiently familiar with the details to offer a meaningful opinion.
In article <Xns9C999569BEAE8blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
> > it's absolutely false. iphones and ipod touches can do quite a bit
> > without any internet connection at all. not all apps require a full
> > time data connection.
>
> But most do
got an exact number or just blowing hot air? not that i need to ask.
there are a substantial number of apps that do not need an internet
connection, including reference apps, photo/video apps, games, email
and rss readers. the last two only need a connection to download
content, not full time and games typically need a connection only to
update a global scoreboard, not to play, and that's something that can
be deferred.
saying that an iphone must connect to the internet to be useful is flat
out false.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:031020091951074730% nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9C999569BEAE8blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
> Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
>
>> > it's absolutely false. iphones and ipod touches can do quite a bit
>> > without any internet connection at all. not all apps require a full
>> > time data connection.
>>
>> But most do
>
> got an exact number or just blowing hot air? not that i need to ask.
>
> there are a substantial number of apps that do not need an internet
> connection, including reference apps, photo/video apps, games, email
> and rss readers. the last two only need a connection to download
> content, not full time and games typically need a connection only to
> update a global scoreboard, not to play, and that's something that can
> be deferred.
>
> saying that an iphone must connect to the internet to be useful is flat
> out false.
>
Saying that to be productive an iPhone user must connect to the internet is
quite true. Of everything you listed above, only email would qualify as a
business productivity application.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:031020092007172926%nospam@nospam.invalid:
> In article <Xns9C99B6A321151blutofabercom@188.40.43.213>, John
> Blutarsky <bluto@faber.com> wrote:
>
>> Saying that to be productive an iPhone user must connect to the
>> internet is quite true.
>
> it's completely false as i've pointed out.
>
you didn't point out anything, except for a few toy applications. I stand
by my original claim- iPhone business productivity is much more reliant on
the internet than a RIM phone.
Re: Sorry Navas.... 
Linear Mode
