> >> and I don't THINK anyone has
> >> figured out a way to have some new orgasms with it.
> >
> > sure they have, where have you been?
>
> You need to get out more....(c;
>
> Larry
you were the one that didn't realize your iPhone could give you orgasms,
so I guess it's YOU that needs to get out more.
In article <slrnf98cpo.bma.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>, nospam@insightbb.com says...
> none wrote on [Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:05:53 -0600]:
> > Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
> >
> >> > Every thing is in perfect real time, and real examples. Learn about the
> >> > iPhone, don't make things up to fit your ignorance.
> >>
> >> Are you *that* naive? (Again, another rhetorical question.)
> >>
> >> Google "slow iphone" and see what you get. Apparently the same device
> >> that wets your pants is having problems with slow Internet access.
> >
> > and that has nothing to do with the iPhone. the iPhone is exceedingly
> > quick. Snappy you could say... sure if you are stuck using a Edge
> > network the date network could be slow, but that's pretty rare in the
> > age of 802.11.
>
> This just proves you're a moron. 802.11 is very very very far from
> available everywhere.
>
> Oh gee, I am at the bookstore, I can pay 20 bucks for 802.11 or I can
> use Edge. Geeze, what choice would you make?
Let me get this straight, you're saying that 80kbs service is ok and
better than wifi? And even better than Verizon 1.5megabit EDVO Rev A?
> >> Are you *that* naive? (Again, another rhetorical question.)
> >>
> >> Google "slow iphone" and see what you get. Apparently the same device
> >> that wets your pants is having problems with slow Internet access.
> >
> > and that has nothing to do with the iPhone. the iPhone is exceedingly
> > quick. Snappy you could say... sure if you are stuck using a Edge
> > network the date network could be slow, but that's pretty rare in the
> > age of 802.11.
>
> This just proves you're a moron. 802.11 is very very very far from
> available everywhere.
not if you are in a affluent area, it's everywhere. sure, perhaps not
while driving down a highway, but in any modern residential area it's
available everywhere. If it hasn't come to your city as of yet, move.
> Oh gee, I am at the bookstore, I can pay 20 bucks for 802.11 or I can
> use Edge. Geeze, what choice would you make?
Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote
>>>>> Tim Streater wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Brian <brianL@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> marc318@hotmail.com (Marc) wrote
>>>>>>>> Verizon is so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o screwed.
>>>>>>> Fantasy.
>>>>>>> The vast bulk of phone users want dirt cheap phones, you watch.
>>>>>>> The iphone is too big for anyone who doesnt want to browse the
>>>>>>> web and do email.
>>>>>> It seems to be about the same size as my PDA, which sits fine in
>>>>>> my pocket. Thing is, I don't need to spend that much on a phone.
>>>>>> I got a £50 pay as you go from Tesco and that does fine. No web
>>>>>> shit, no camera, no nothing. Just a freaking phone.
>>>>> There exists a huge number of people that prefer a *great* phone
>>>>> that *only* makes phone calls,
>>>> Bet there aint when the extras are free.
>>>>> over a *fairly good* phone that does a smattering of *everything*.
>>>> Usual mindless binary stuff. There's plenty of great phones that
>>>> make and receive phone calls well and do quite a bit of other
>>>> stuff as well.
>>>> Only a fool carts around a bag full of devices for the stuff that
>>>> doesnt get done much, but which is handy at times, even if its
>>>> just when some fool has run into your car etc.
>>> One thing that one has to consider is if you *need* all the extras, and one breaks, you've lost
>>> everything while the device is being repaired.
>> Fantasy. They dont get repaired anymore, they just get replaced,
>> so the single device that does it all just gets replaced, and when
>> thats a basic phone that happens to have a camera and media
>> player in it because those extras are effectively free, and its just
>> the cheapest viable phone you can find, thats a complete yawn.
>>> (Similar to purchasing an audio/video system...
>> Nope, nothing like it.
>>> If your all-in-one breaks, you're SOL during repairs, while separate
>>> components allow you to continue using the functioning components.)
>> Different matter entirely with a basic phone that happens to have a
>> camera and media player included effectively for free, which can be
>> handy when some fool runs into your car etc or you just see something
>> on offer and want to take a quick picture of it while you chase up
>> the alternatives when deciding if its the one to buy etc etc etc.
> "Effectively for free..."
> You're kidding, right?
Nope, thats what those are when its hard to find a phone without those now.
"Brian" <brianL@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9I60JQGS39273.2172453704@anonymous.poster...
<snip>
> Verizon is so-o-o-o-o-o-o-o screwed.
people don't switch to verizon because of the phones (they've had the worst
phones of the major providers for a looong time, although it's been getting
*much* better), but they do tend to stay because of the better coverage.
that's why verizon has such a lower churn rate than at&t / cingular. i know
when i switched to verizon, i was bummed about the phones (i had a ericsson
something or other wap phone w/ at&t waaay back in '99, then a nokia 8290,
then a sweeet t68i. then i switched to verizon, and the best phone they had
was some crappy kyocera. but the service was soooo much better).
In article <Xns99696F7A72302noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in news:srhi-4980DE.07221010072007
> @newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> > That's illogical. Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone. Apple can set the
> > iPhone's price at whatever it wants regardless of the iPhone's supply.
> >
> >
>
> GM has a monopoly on Cadillac Escalades, too, but it cannot demand any
> price it wants for it because the market is FLOODED with Escalades selling
> far below its dream price.
Not quite. There are several other automobile companies who make
vehicles to compete with the Cadillac Escalade, such as the Ford
Expedition. If you have never seen an iPhone, you may not appreciate it,
but there is no company today who makes anything like the iPhone.
Companies such as RIM and Palm make smartphones, but they are nothing
like the iPhone.
The reason sales of the Escalade are not meeting GM's projections is
because of the high price of gas. The same situation is occurred with
the SUVs that GM's competitors manufacture. In contrast, sales of the
iPhone have well exceeded Apple's projections, from what I have read.
> So, as with every other new product, we create a shortage to maintain
> retail pricing until, at least, the richest and most drooling customers
> have paid full retail for it...and its sales go into the post-fascination
> slump every product, including this one, goes through. Then, prices will
> drop until sales pick up to a target level, again. Remember those big-
> screen $10,000 (various technology) TV sets Circuit City now sells for
> $1595? Same idea....
Not quite. Part of the drop in price comes from economies of scale that
are obtained by being able to order more parts in greater volumes. There
is some credence though to your claim that prices go down when people
stop drooling at new products, but mainly the price falls when a
competing product enters the market, which has not happened with the
iPhone ... yet.
In article <Xns99696EAFA7989noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in news:srhi-CC54CA.07203810072007
> @newsgroups.comcast.net:
>
> > there are a hell of a lot of new
> > functions that can be added by third-party developers via Web 2,
> > although I for one would like to see Apple open up the full API. In
> > fact, it wouldn't surprise me if some enterprising software developer
> > figures out how to get at the full API without Apple's help. That
> person
> > will be wealthy, as a result.
> >
>
> I held one in the deserted ATT store across from Northwoods Mall in N
> Charleston, SC, one of three on a little display to "make 'em drool over
> something they can't have". It's cute, too small to watch movies on, has
> crappy audio without earphones and is too BIG for a cellphone. I saw my
> reflection in the window making a call and I looked really stupid holding
> a Palm Pilot to my ear talking to it...(c;
You are directing your comments to someone who has also seen the iPhone
and decided not to buy one. I don't think comparing its size to a cell
phone makes sense though because its not a cell phone. The iPhone is a
smartphone and compared to other smartphones, its a reasonable size.
Marc wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Because of the anticipated lower price, 2008 sales of 30 million to 40
> million units “is achievable,” Chang said.
>
> This would be a much larger volume than is expected of the first iPhone,
> Apple has targeted sales of 10 million units in 2008, which would give it a
> 1 percent share of the global market.
>
>
>
Uh... just how many ATT/Cingular customers are there? If anywhere near
30-40 million+, can the vast majority really be expected to switch from
subsidized, almost-free phones to $300+/- phones??? Or are other
carriers and countries going to be offering other markets? Do those
numbers really make sense?
If I read the 2nd quoted paragraph correctly, it seems Apple expects to
sell 10 million (original?) iPhones in 2008, which would have to be a
substantial portion of the ATT/Cingular customer base, and then 30-40
million more for the "Nano-phone"?
I think it will be informative to see how long the initial sales pace
can continue until most of the potential iPhone customers have made
their purchases. It seems to me likely that the sales curve will look
something like a huge spike in these first weeks followed by the steep
downslope of a drastic fall-off.
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote
>> Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote
>>> That's illogical. Apple has a monopoly on the iPhone. Apple can set the
>>> iPhone's price at whatever it wants regardless of the iPhone's supply.
>> GM has a monopoly on Cadillac Escalades, too, but it cannot
>> demand any price it wants for it because the market is FLOODED
>> with Escalades selling far below its dream price.
> Not quite. There are several other automobile companies who make
> vehicles to compete with the Cadillac Escalade, such as the Ford
> Expedition. If you have never seen an iPhone, you may not appreciate
> it, but there is no company today who makes anything like the iPhone.
Pig ignorant lie.
> Companies such as RIM and Palm make smartphones,
> but they are nothing like the iPhone.
Pig ignorant lie.
> The reason sales of the Escalade are not meeting GM's projections is
> because of the high price of gas. The same situation is occurred with
> the SUVs that GM's competitors manufacture. In contrast, sales of the
> iPhone have well exceeded Apple's projections, from what I have read.
Its just a tad cheaper than an Escalade too.
>> So, as with every other new product, we create a shortage to
>> maintain retail pricing until, at least, the richest and most drooling
>> customers have paid full retail for it...and its sales go into the
>> post-fascination slump every product, including this one, goes
>> through. Then, prices will drop until sales pick up to a target
>> level, again. Remember those big- screen $10,000 (various
>> technology) TV sets Circuit City now sells for $1595? Same idea....
> Not quite. Part of the drop in price comes from economies of scale
> that are obtained by being able to order more parts in greater volumes.
That aint the reason for that drop.
> There is some credence though to your claim that prices go down
> when people stop drooling at new products, but mainly the price
> falls when a competing product enters the market, which has not
> happened with the iPhone ... yet.
none wrote:
> CC56 <copycat56@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Awesome Dude. I'm sure you'll be the only one in your 6'th grade class
> > with an iPhone.
>
> not in the area i live in, there will be hundreds of iphones in K-12 by
> the end of the month, here are just two 7th graders in the iphone line
And then Tommy Tucker the bully punches the kid in the face and takes
it. Any sane parent would NOT send their kid to school with a $500+
gizmo. Several years ago, kids were getting stabbed over Pokemon
*trading cards*!
In article <46945dde$0$4932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
rocxspam <nospam@xspamx.no> wrote:
>
> I think it will be informative to see how long the initial sales pace
> can continue until most of the potential iPhone customers have made
> their purchases. It seems to me likely that the sales curve will look
> something like a huge spike in these first weeks followed by the steep
> downslope of a drastic fall-off.
>
> Time will tell...
>
> ROC
Past experience with consumer electronics in general would suggest
that we will see another, most likely smaller, pop around Christmas.
In article
<kurtullman-71CBD5.07511211072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx
>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <46945dde$0$4932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> rocxspam <nospam@xspamx.no> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it will be informative to see how long the initial sales pace
> > can continue until most of the potential iPhone customers have made
> > their purchases. It seems to me likely that the sales curve will look
> > something like a huge spike in these first weeks followed by the steep
> > downslope of a drastic fall-off.
> >
> > Time will tell...
> >
> > ROC
>
> Past experience with consumer electronics in general would suggest
> that we will see another, most likely smaller, pop around Christmas.
I agree; I would be very surprised if Apple doesn't offer a cheaper
iPhone model in a few months, as well as an iPod only model that uses
the same touch screen technology. Since Apple is giving away an iPod
nano free to each student who buys a laptop now, its also a dead
giveaway that Apple intends to upgrade the iPod nano by September. Apple
has done the same thing, each of the past two years.
In article <1184151109.214048.32090@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>, balanco01@yahoo.com wrote:
> I dont consider the iphone a smartphone at all because you cant load
> or run apps on it.
Sure you can; the apps are Web 2 apps; besides, a Smartphone gets its
name from the functions it can perform out of the box; not due to its
ability to run third party apps. Out of the box, the iPhone runs rings
around any other smartphone.
> > > Awesome Dude. I'm sure you'll be the only one in your 6'th grade class
> > > with an iPhone.
> >
> > not in the area i live in, there will be hundreds of iphones in K-12 by
> > the end of the month, here are just two 7th graders in the iphone line
>
> And then Tommy Tucker the bully punches the kid in the face and takes
> it. Any sane parent would NOT send their kid to school with a $500+
> gizmo. Several years ago, kids were getting stabbed over Pokemon
> *trading cards*!
you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
> > first cell device to use Coverflow - that's very new.
>
> True- it's pretty, but it isn't a new FUNCTION. All music-playing phones
> let you choose content by "album" or "artist." New look, old function.
it's a new function, you haven't been able to "flick" through your
albums with a finger before.
> This seems to be the theme of these online "debates" over iPhone's
> merits. The pro-iPhone crowd confuses new methodology with new
> functionality, and the anti-iPhone crowd dismisses new interface and
> design far to easily, since ease-of-use is critical in the actual use of
> all of these "new" feature that aren't really new.
yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that have and
use the iphone against those that have never touched one.
> > first cell device to be directly linked to YouTube - that's very new.
>
> YouTube launched a mobile service just prior to the iPhone launch.
> (m.youtube.com) making YouTube available on many mobiles now. Arguably,
> the creation of their mobile service was in preparation for the iPhone,
> so thanks for that! ;-)
yes, no problem.
> > first cell device to show the Actual Web - that's very new.
>
> Except for flash/java. It's closer than most devices, but still not the
> "actual web."
it has java... just not flash since it's obsolete and eats batteries.
> > first cell device to have your actual emails - that's very new.
>
> Huh? HTML e-mail has been available on other devices. I've had it for
> over a year, although admittedly I needed third-party software (the free
> QMail) on my WM phone. Now I have it natively (WM6) via software update
> as well.
not "real mail", the email on my iphone is indistinguishable from my
computer email. it looks and acts the same, and that's a first for a
phone.
> > > Play online games....no, also forbidden
> >
> > you got one right! no games sorry, kiddos... i guess this is a big
> > person's toy.
>
> While the anti-iPhone posts here have been ridiculous, it's equally
> ridiculous to dismiss as feature the iPhone lacks as unimportant or
> useless. A lot of adults play mobile games as well.
yes, games could come to the iphone, but gosh it does a ton of stuff
already, so i'm sure adding that was pretty far down the list.
> Besides, you can't have it both ways- it doesn't have games, so it's not
> for kids- it doesn't have full Exchange support, so it's not for
> business. Who then is it for? Unemployed adults?
i'm sure the ipod version will have games, and steve has already said,
more complete exchange support is coming.
> > > Run Windoze software....oops, sorry.
> >
> > and why would you ever want to do that?
>
> Agreed- it has it's own perfectly good OS. Imagine the possibilities if
> an SDK is ever released!
yes, and it's entirely possible at some future point, but i think apple
was smart to make sure it's highly reliable. which it is.
> > > Run MAC software....no, it doesn't do that, either, I'm told.
> >
> > ah, it runs Mac software, what do you think each of those buttons does?
>
> Runs _iPhone_ software- not _Mac_ software, otherwise Safari would hook
> flash and java support and download it, like a Mac can. It's not a Mac,
> and it isn't running Mac software- unless Macs are now using ARM-based
> processors...
fair enough, outside of safari and mail, it probably more fitting to
say it runs "widgets".
> > > Do Palm Pilot "things"....no, no, that's not new any more
> >
> > like what?
>
> Isn't syncing one-way on iPhone? (I'm asking- I haven't used on yet.)
> Do contact and calendar changes upload to your computer?
yes, data goes both ways. kinda fun that hasn't been reported anywhere
that i've seen.... if you open iPhoto, the iPhone shows up and you can
pull in your camera images.
> > > Hmm...It's not a HDTV....
> >
> > It's actually higher quality than HDTV, a 1660dpi screen, the first of
> > any cell phone.
>
> Huh? How does 1660dpi come out to 320x480 unless the iPhone screen is
> 1/3"?
my bad, 160dpi
> The iPhone resolution of 320x480 is certainly sufficient, however VGA
> phones (640x480) predate the iPhone (ETEN makes a WM PPC phone for
> Euro/Asian markets with a 3.5" VGA screen.) I'm happy enough with 320x240,
> but more is always nicer.
>
> > I just put real time, moving radar on mine. How about your cell phone,
> > can it do this?
> >
> > http://apple.accuweather.com/widget/iphone1/iphone.html
> >
> > Nope!
>
> Animated radar maps hav been available on WAP browsers for years, and
> downloadable apps (generally not free, however) have displayed it on PPCs
> and Treos for quite some time. Sadly, it seems, this is another example
> of "making it easy makes it new." How many current "dumb-phone" users
> know the wealth of easy-to-receive information that's been available on
> their phones for years?
but those are special apps on those phones, these are simple webpages.
agree that most dumb phone don't use or don't even know about these
extra features, the iphone's simplicity allows for more discovery, so it
should help.
> > So Larry, we have now discovered you are an idiot. Thanks for letting
> > us know.
>
> Larry is just making a semi-valid point. The iPhone is certainly
> breaking some ground in ease of use, but it doesn't actually DO anything
> that hasn't been done before.
except for a multi-touch display, ambient light sensor, accelerometer,
high rez screen, real time google maps, ipod, the real web, etc.
> It's the iPod all over again- existing technology made easier. There's
> nothing wrong with that- it's a perfectly laudable goal in and of itself.
> I just remember watching the Pirates/calamari iPhone commercial a few
> weeks ago and my wife saying "your phone does all that, doesn't it?" The
> irony was
> that I had to tell her "so does yours!" (She has a T-Mobile Dash- a WM
> Smartphone with a "hard" keyboard rather than a touchscreen.)
>
> I'd bet she'd like the iPhone- if only AT&T had coverage where we live...
fair enough, and while her phone doesn't do what the calamari ad does,
at least with just touches of a finger, you can, with some work make it
sorta do it. sure, at some point the iphone will expand to other
carriers, for now att wins the prize.
hopefully we'll see an iPod with WiFi, ichat/skype features and
everything but the old fashioned cell phone portion.
In article <a-577AA2.07440511072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
none <a@b.com> wrote:
>
> yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that have and
> use the iphone against those that have never touched one.
I think it goes a little deeper in that it seems to be between those
that were destined to have an iPhone (Apple fan or just a need for the
latest UberGeek gadget) and those would go back to strings and tins cans
before they would ever touch anything with the Apple logo on it.
Of course this leaves the majority who really don't care either way,
mildly amused about the hooha..
none wrote:
> CC56 <copycat56@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Awesome Dude. I'm sure you'll be the only one in your 6'th grade class
>> with an iPhone.
>
> not in the area i live in, there will be hundreds of iphones in K-12 by
> the end of the month, here are just two 7th graders in the iphone line
> that bought 2 each.
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/alchemy8/general.jpg
>
> i think you forget there is a more intelligent world out there, also a
> wealthier world... which you might not be apart of because you have set
> lower standards for yourself.
>
> -
Really? I would be quite surprised if a lot of those show off purchases
by "intelligent" people weren't made using a CC and being paid off in 99
easy payments plus interest and penalties.
none wrote:
> balanco01@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>>> Awesome Dude. I'm sure you'll be the only one in your 6'th grade class
>>>> with an iPhone.
>>> not in the area i live in, there will be hundreds of iphones in K-12 by
>>> the end of the month, here are just two 7th graders in the iphone line
>> And then Tommy Tucker the bully punches the kid in the face and takes
>> it. Any sane parent would NOT send their kid to school with a $500+
>> gizmo. Several years ago, kids were getting stabbed over Pokemon
>> *trading cards*!
>
> you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
> happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
In article <a-577AA2.07440511072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
none <a@b.com> wrote:
> > True- it's pretty, but it isn't a new FUNCTION. All music-playing phones
> > let you choose content by "album" or "artist." New look, old function.
>
> it's a new function, you haven't been able to "flick" through your
> albums with a finger before.
That's the interface. The function is to select an album. That's not a
new function. It's a new interface on an old function.
> > > first cell device to show the Actual Web - that's very new.
> >
> > Except for flash/java. It's closer than most devices, but still not the
> > "actual web."
>
> it has java... just not flash since it's obsolete and eats batteries.
Flash is obsolete? Hehe.
> > > first cell device to have your actual emails - that's very new.
> >
> > Huh? HTML e-mail has been available on other devices. I've had it for
> > over a year, although admittedly I needed third-party software (the free
> > QMail) on my WM phone. Now I have it natively (WM6) via software update
> > as well.
>
> not "real mail", the email on my iphone is indistinguishable from my
> computer email. it looks and acts the same, and that's a first for a
> phone.
Of course it isn't. Email is text and/or image data. That has been
available on many phones. There is no "real mail" versus "fake mail"
here.
> yes, and it's entirely possible at some future point, but i think apple
> was smart to make sure it's highly reliable. which it is.
So is my Nokia, which has third party applications on it. One being
Salling Clicker, a functionality I won't be expecting from the iPhone
any time soon...
> > you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
> > happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
>
> Now you're just being an asshole.
incorrect, i'm being truthful. try it sometime. or MOVE to a more
civilized location.
no kid "steals" in an affluent area, come on, get real....
> Really? I would be quite surprised if a lot of those show off purchases
> by "intelligent" people weren't made using a CC and being paid off in 99
> easy payments plus interest and penalties.
not here george, it's a wealthy location, up there with Malibu, in fact
I sold 2 iphones to a person with a summer home there. I'm up to 18
iphones sold as of this morning.
> > This just proves you're a moron. 802.11 is very very very far from
> > available everywhere.
> >
> > Oh gee, I am at the bookstore, I can pay 20 bucks for 802.11 or I can
> > use Edge. Geeze, what choice would you make?
>
> Let me get this straight, you're saying that 80kbs service is ok and
> better than wifi? And even better than Verizon 1.5megabit EDVO Rev A?
ignore Justin, he is still thinking the old CELL world has a chance to
survive against 802.11. which all computer people KNOW isn't going to
happen. Cell tech is DEAD, it's just now a transition period before
everyone is on free 802.11xxx
> > yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that have and
> > use the iphone against those that have never touched one.
>
> I think it goes a little deeper in that it seems to be between those
> that were destined to have an iPhone (Apple fan or just a need for the
> latest UberGeek gadget) and those would go back to strings and tins cans
> before they would ever touch anything with the Apple logo on it.
> Of course this leaves the majority who really don't care either way,
> mildly amused about the hooha..
yes, there is some of that, i'll agree. but ALL phones will now work
like the iPhone in 10 years, that's a fact written in today's stone.
the iPhone changed the world as we knew it, it took about 7 days, but it
did happen. Now every Cell Phone must work like the iPhone or "die".
At 10 Jul 2007 21:00:08 -0500 Jason McNorton wrote:
> > Oh gee, I am at the bookstore, I can pay 20 bucks for 802.11 or I can
> > use Edge. Geeze, what choice would you make?
>
> Let me get this straight, you're saying that 80kbs service is ok and
> better than wifi? And even better than Verizon 1.5megabit EDVO Rev A?
No, he's saying iPhone owners will be stuck using EDGE often, because Wi-
Fi is often unavailable, so they won't see the snappy performance
displayed in the iPhone commercials.
iPhone owners don't get the luxury of subscribing to EVDO.
Civilized rich? (Was: Apple plans cheaper, Nano-based phone)
In article <a-135706.11295611072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>,
none <a@b.com> wrote:
> Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
>
> > > you must live in a uncivilized location, something like that wouldn't
> > > happen here since all the kids are wealthy and highly educated.
> >
> > Now you're just being an asshole.
>
> incorrect, i'm being truthful. try it sometime. or MOVE to a more
> civilized location.
>
> no kid "steals" in an affluent area, come on, get real....
I seriously doubt that. Many brats will shoplift as a matter of passage
or initiation. However, in rich areas, what would likely happen is that
the parents would just agree to pay for whatever was stolen and keep it
out of the papers.
Have you forgotten about Winona Ryder?
Similarly, Leopold and Loeb were children of the elite in Chicago when
they killed Bobby Franks in the 1930's for the thrill of it.
None, you really need to spend time in areas such as post-Katrina Gulf
Coast. You are really immature and need to learn how other people live
who must work to support their children by putting food on the table and
a roof over their heads. After all, spoiled rich brats like Paris
Hilton, Nicole Richie, Lindsay Lohan, etc. are far less civilized than
the people who are paid to cook their food and make their beds.
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote
> none <a@b.com> wrote
>> yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that have
>> and use the iphone against those that have never touched one.
> I think it goes a little deeper in that it seems to be between those
> that were destined to have an iPhone (Apple fan or just a need for the
> latest UberGeek gadget) and those would go back to strings and tins
> cans before they would ever touch anything with the Apple logo on it.
Its never that black and white.
Todd clearly doesnt fit into either category, and neither do you or I.
> Of course this leaves the majority who really don't
> care either way, mildly amused about the hooha..
And plenty that realise that while the iphone certainly is
quite different in some areas like the UI, its nothing like as
revolutionary as the worst of the fanchildren like this one claim.
none <a@b.com> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> yes, what i've noticed it's really a debate between people that
>>> have and use the iphone against those that have never touched one.
>>
>> I think it goes a little deeper in that it seems to be between
>> those that were destined to have an iPhone (Apple fan or just a need
>> for the latest UberGeek gadget) and those would go back to strings
>> and tins cans before they would ever touch anything with the Apple
>> logo on it. Of course this leaves the majority who really don't
>> care either way, mildly amused about the hooha..
> yes, there is some of that, i'll agree. but ALL
> phones will now work like the iPhone in 10 years,
Nope, just like all computers dont work like the Mac
and all music players dont work like ipods either.
> that's a fact written in today's stone.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about the basics of how the market works.
> the iPhone changed the world as we knew it, it took about 7 days, but
> it did happen. Now every Cell Phone must work like the iPhone or "die".
> It's that simple.
Pure pig ignorant fantasy, most obviously with cheap low end phones for starters.
Re: Apple plans cheaper, Nano-based phone 
fair enough, outside of safari and mail, it probably more fitting to
Linear Mode
