Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:12:42 -0700, Justin wrote
(in article <slrnf837ba.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:32:28 -0700]:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:46 -0700, Justin wrote
>> (in article <slrnf82r1m.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
>>
>>> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:27:04 -0700]:
>>>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
>>>> automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes
>>>> launches
>>>> pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard and
>>>> non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>>>
>>> Yup, and to achieve that alleged simplicity it runs two processes
>>> continually that take up way more ram than necessary.
>>>
>>>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>>>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>>>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
>>>>
>>>> It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's
>>>> ever
>>>> come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have cited
>>>> the
>>>> GUI as one reason.
>>>
>>> Yep, the exellently intuitive gui that doesn't even tell you how to turn
>>> the thing off. Or how to recover from the frequent crashes it has.
>>
>> What frequent crashes?
>
> I know the nano I have crashes on two of three days at least once. Yes,
> it's updated, it's one of the current gen.
>
> No, I didn't buy it, it was a prize. It works OK for podcasts.
I have never heard of a iPod "crashing", that's a new one on me - especially
one with flash memory rather than a HDD (which I could, perhaps, see). I have
an older 10 Gig model with a HDD in it, and its never crashed. Would you mind
terribly telling us how these crashes manifest themselves? IOW, what does the
iPod do when it crashes? Thanks.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:55:41 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article <znu-DCC386.19554126062007@individual.net>):
> In article <slrnf837ba.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:32:28 -0700]:
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:46 -0700, Justin wrote
>>> (in article <slrnf82r1m.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
>>>
>>>> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:27:04 -0700]:
>>>>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
>>>>> automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes
>>>>> launches
>>>>> pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard and
>>>>> non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and to achieve that alleged simplicity it runs two processes
>>>> continually that take up way more ram than necessary.
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>>>>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>>>>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's
>>>>> ever
>>>>> come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have cited
>>>>> the
>>>>> GUI as one reason.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, the exellently intuitive gui that doesn't even tell you how to turn
>>>> the thing off. Or how to recover from the frequent crashes it has.
>>>
>>> What frequent crashes?
>>
>> I know the nano I have crashes on two of three days at least once. Yes,
>> it's updated, it's one of the current gen.
>>
>> No, I didn't buy it, it was a prize. It works OK for podcasts.
>
> I'd visit an Apple store with it. I think my previous generation nano
> has crashed all of once, ever. I've had it for a year.
>
>
Hmm I didn't know that they crashed at all! Fancy that.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:41:53 -0700, Justin wrote
(in article <slrnf83g31.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:54:00 -0700]:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:12:42 -0700, Justin wrote
>> (in article <slrnf837ba.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
>>
>>> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:32:28 -0700]:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:42:46 -0700, Justin wrote
>>>> (in article <slrnf82r1m.nv.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> George Graves wrote on [Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:27:04 -0700]:
>>>>>> Yeah, that is really difficult. Plug the iPod into the computer (it
>>>>>> automatically launches iTunes, that's a daunting task) when iTunes
>>>>>> launches
>>>>>> pull down the file menu and select "Sync iPod". Boy that's sure hard
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> non-intuitive, yessir. I don't see how anybody ever figures it out!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, and to achieve that alleged simplicity it runs two processes
>>>>> continually that take up way more ram than necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, because of the brand recognition, they recognised
>>>>>>> the brand when they decided they needed a media player
>>>>>>> and a superficial look showed that its a viable product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's more than just superficially viable. Every test of players that's
>>>>>> ever
>>>>>> come down the pike has placed the iPod above all others. Many have
>>>>>> cited
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> GUI as one reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, the exellently intuitive gui that doesn't even tell you how to turn
>>>>> the thing off. Or how to recover from the frequent crashes it has.
>>>>
>>>> What frequent crashes?
>>>
>>> I know the nano I have crashes on two of three days at least once. Yes,
>>> it's updated, it's one of the current gen.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't buy it, it was a prize. It works OK for podcasts.
>>
>> I have never heard of a iPod "crashing", that's a new one on me -
>> especially
>> one with flash memory rather than a HDD (which I could, perhaps, see). I
>> have
>> an older 10 Gig model with a HDD in it, and its never crashed. Would you
>> mind
>> terribly telling us how these crashes manifest themselves? IOW, what does
>> the
>> iPod do when it crashes? Thanks.
>
> I plug it into the car stero via the headphone jack, hit play. It locks up.
> After forcing a
> reset with the play/pause-centre button it shows a very faint apple logo
> while it had a small loading status bar. About 30 seconds later it's
> ready to go again.
>
> Same thing happens with headphones.
Interesting. I think a previous poster is correct. The next time you're near
your closest Apple Store, take the thing to the "Genius Bar" therein. I
believe that they will tell you that this is not normal and perhaps they can
recommend a "fix" for you. I think it would be worth a try. Have you been to
the Apple iPod site searching for firmware upgrades? I don't know that there
is one for your nano, but its probably worth looking. It really shouldn't do
that.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
On Jun 26, 1:51 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>> Michelle Steiner <miche...@michelle.org> wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
> >>>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
> >>>>>> you already have on the computer for example.
> >>>>> Explain, please.
> >>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
> >>>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
> >>>> are already used to than a special purpose app.
> >>> You can.
> >> No you cant by just plugging it in and carrying on
> >> regardless like you can with the competitive products.
> > Well not for music, anyway.
>
> Precisely.
>
> >>> But what about playlists, and song titles and on video
> >>> iPods album art that's associated with the music?
> >> Any decent device does all that fine. And a hell of a lot
> >> more too, like the camera detail with cameras etc too.
> > What do Cameras have to do with iPods?
>
> Everything to do with the sort of extra detail
> that goes with the files the device handles.
>
> Its much more intuitive if all those devices, media players,
> cameras, phones, USB keys, etc etc etc all just appear as
> another drive when you plug them into the computer and
> you can move stuff from one to the other at will with the
> file manager you use all the time, rather than each device
> having its own special purpose app like iTunes, each with
> its own unique UI and way of doing things.
>
Wow, the universe must be ending cause I agree with Rod Speed on this
one. I have a generic
MP3 player, and all I have to do is copy the files onto it as if it's
just another drive. It's internal
software handles creating the playlists and stuff automaticly. Very
simple, and I can actualy
take the thing to another computer and not have to install any special
apps or any of that crap to use it.
Whenever you have to deal with proprietary interfaces or files, it's
an encumberance and really
limits the functionality of the device.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <5ebv5cF38bc1aU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear as a
>>>> drive and to use the normal file manager interface you are already
>>>> used to than a special purpose app.
>>> No it isn't.
>> Corse it is. You dont have a separate app per device for starters.
>
> Well, lets see. iTunes will play and organize music on the computer; it
> will work with the iPod, AppleTV, and iPhone--nope; don't need a
> separate app per device.
>
>>> I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of those functions in one
>>> easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.
>> Pity about all the other devices that also just show up as a drive.
>
> "All those other devices" are a DVD/CD drive and an external hard drive;
> the file manager is used to manage files on them. I don't play or
> organize music with them because a file manager isn't designed to do
> that.
>
>> Because even someone as stupid as you
>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist mindless bigots ?
>> Easy to claim, bigot.
>
> Anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid and a bigot. So much for
> rational discussion. Bye bye.
>
>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
>> irrelevant.
>
> Only to complete assholes like you. You're a Republican, right?
Actually, I was going to ask if he was a filthy Liberal/Democrat.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Rod Speed wrote:
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
>>>>>>>>>> you already have on the computer for example.
>
>>>>>>>>> Explain, please.
>
>>>>>>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
>>>>>>>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
>>>>>>>> are already used to than a special purpose app.
>
>>>>>>> No it isn't.
>
>>>>>>>>>> And what applications do those things better?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
>>>>>>>>>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.
>
>>>>>>>>> That's one option you have with iTunes.
>
>>>>>>>> Not with the file manager you use for everything else.
>
>>>>>>> And that file manager can't play music. Let's see, with your
>>>>>>> preferred method, you use one application to download music,
>>>>>>> another to play it, another to copy it to the iPod, and another
>>>>>>> to burn it to CDs. I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of
>>>>>>> those functions in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.
>
>>>>>> I think we've found ourselves another cross-posting Apple hater Michelle.
>
>>>>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
>
>>>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
>
>>> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.
>
>> Where did I call you a name?
>
> Even you should be able to find 'another cross-posting Apple hater' above.
>
>> I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater (from your posts)
>
> Pity there isnt a shred of apple hate in any of my posts.
>
>> but that's hardly personal rancor.
>
> Its clearly name calling.
>
>>>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
>>>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
>
>>>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
>
>>> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
>
>> Again, what name calling?
>
> See above.
>
>> I have called you by no name.
>
> Bare faced lie.
>
>>>>>> Apple's way is no good because it's ...well....Apples way.
>
>>>>> Wrong again. Its just much more intuitive for a device to
>>>>> showup as just another drive, and be able to use the device
>>>>> just like any other device when loading and unloading it.
>
>>>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
>
>>> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
>>> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.
>
>>>> Anyway, its not mine.
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>> Not a problem, just a different opinion.
>
> It your problem that your opinion differs.
>
>>>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
>>>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
>
>>> You need to get out more.
>
>>> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.
>
>> I disagree
>
> Your problem.
>
>>>>> Sure, include a dedicated app for the stupids who dont even
>>>>> know what a drive is, but let those who do know what a drive
>>>>> is deal with the device just like any other drive if they want to.
>
>>>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.
>
>>> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.
>
>>>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
>>>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
>
>>> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.
>
>> I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.
>
> Your problem.
>
>>>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>
>>>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
>
>>>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
>
>>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>
>>>>> Even someone as stupid as you
>
>>>> Again, why the personal rancor?
>
>>> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
>
>> I called you no name.
>
> Bare faced lie. You called me another cross-posting Apple hater.
>
>>>> I've not called you any names have I?
>
>>> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'
>
>> I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call you one.
>
> Pathetic.
>
>> Even so, responding by calling me stupid,
>
> Never did.
>
>> bigoted,
>
> Or that.
>
>> incapable of thought
>
> Or that.
>
>> is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain opinion (Apple hater)
>
> Just another of your silly little fantasys.
>
>> based upon their own words.
>
> Just like with your stupidity and incapability of thought. Funny that.
>
>>>>> should be able to have a look at my posting history and see that
>>>>> I hardly ever make any comment about Apple, and that when I
>>>>> do, I have said that the ipod particularly is a very decent
>>>>> product, albeit with some real downsides with iTunes particularly.
>
>>>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
>
>>> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.
>
>> But relevant enough when you call me stupid
>> because I haven't checked your posting history.
>
> Never ever did that, liar.
>
>>>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
>>>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.
>
>>> Try getting something out of an ipod and
>>> putting it in another media player for starters.
>
>> I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection,
>> not from stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.
>
> And you cant get stuff from somone else's ipod into your own very easily either.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>
>>>>>>> Right here, we're talking about the iPod
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.
>
>>>>>>> Gee, right here, you're changing it to cell phones.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone
>>>>>>>>>> ever showed up.
>
>>>>>>> And here you're talking about cell phones
>>>>>>> again, still in response to the iPod interface.
>
>>>>>>>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.
>
>>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.
>
>>>>>>> And now, you're talking about media players.
>
>>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.
>
>>>>>>>>> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
>>>>>>>>> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.
>
>>>>>>>> They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.
>
>>>>>>>>> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't download
>>>>>>>>> music from the computer to the phone, period.
>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.
>
>>>>>>> But we were talking about one of the reasons I'm planning to switch from Verizon.
>
>>>>>>>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.
>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.
>
>>>>>>> Oh, so you're saying that Apple should have produced a cell phone years ago?
>
>>>>>>>>> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the market
>>>>>>>>> before the iPod made no impression on them?
>
>>>>>>>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.
>
>>>>>>> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?
>
>>>>>>>>> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at
>>>>>>>>> Apple to make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally
>>>>>>>>> didn't do) because it was, by God, an *Apple*, whose computers
>>>>>>>>> they refused to buy.
>
>>>>>>>> Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.
>
>>>>>>> If they hadn't shown an interest in wanting an iPod, Apple
>>>>>>> wouldn't have made the iPod compatible with Windows in the first
>>>>>>> place. But even if you're right, that means that people who had
>>>>>>> avoided both
>>>>>>> Apple and MP3 players in droves suddenly swarmed to get iPods
>>>>>>> because Apple made the iPod available for Windows? Do you
>>>>>>> realize how senseless your thesis is?
>
>>>>>>> I'll tell you one thing, though; if the iPhone won't do voice
>>>>>>> dialing and if it won't upload its address book to my car (which
>>>>>>> has Bluetooth capability for cell phones), I won't buy one. If
>>>>>>> it does one, but not the other, I'll have to decide.
>
>>>>>> It won't surprise me if it doesn't do one or the other.
>
>>>>> Me neither, and when so many of its competitive products do
>>>>> both, AND allow the device to be used just like any other drive...
>
>>>>>> Rarely do I buy a technology product (or even a computer application) that will
>>>>>> do everything I would put in it had I designed it. I suspect we're all that way
>
>>>>> Pity that the functionality she wants is there in the competitive
>>>>> products. With a real keyboard too, which is much better for email.
>
>>>>> AND the competitive products allow you to add 3rd party
>>>>> apps to do what the product itself doesnt come with too.
>
>>>>> Yes, many of the stupids dont enhance their device with 3rd party
>>>>> apps, but anyone with a clue does when some functionality is missing.
>
>>>> Name calling again.
>
>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>
>> Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate,
>
> You clearly did just that at the top.
>
>> and I haven't called you any names.
>
> Liar.
>
>>>> I don't get it.
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>> Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me.
>
> Nope.
>
>> Of course if you don't care, there's always the kill-file.
>
> No one give a flying red fuck what fools like you do or do not choose to read.
>
>
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
zappo wrote:
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
>>>>>>>>>> you already have on the computer for example.
>
>>>>>>>>> Explain, please.
>
>>>>>>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
>>>>>>>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
>>>>>>>> are already used to than a special purpose app.
>
>>>>>>> No it isn't.
>
>>>>>>>>>> And what applications do those things better?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
>>>>>>>>>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.
>
>>>>>>>>> That's one option you have with iTunes.
>
>>>>>>>> Not with the file manager you use for everything else.
>
>>>>>>> And that file manager can't play music. Let's see, with your
>>>>>>> preferred method, you use one application to download music,
>>>>>>> another to play it, another to copy it to the iPod, and another
>>>>>>> to burn it to CDs. I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of
>>>>>>> those functions in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.
>
>>>>>> I think we've found ourselves another cross-posting Apple hater Michelle.
>
>>>>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.
>
>>>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.
>
>>> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.
>
>> Where did I call you a name?
>
> Even you should be able to find 'another cross-posting Apple hater' above.
>
>> I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater (from your posts)
>
> Pity there isnt a shred of apple hate in any of my posts.
>
>> but that's hardly personal rancor.
>
> Its clearly name calling.
>
>>>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
>>>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.
>
>>>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?
>
>>> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
>
>> Again, what name calling?
>
> See above.
>
>> I have called you by no name.
>
> Bare faced lie.
>
>>>>>> Apple's way is no good because it's ...well....Apples way.
>
>>>>> Wrong again. Its just much more intuitive for a device to
>>>>> showup as just another drive, and be able to use the device
>>>>> just like any other device when loading and unloading it.
>
>>>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
>
>>> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
>>> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.
>
>>>> Anyway, its not mine.
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>> Not a problem, just a different opinion.
>
> It your problem that your opinion differs.
>
>>>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
>>>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.
>
>>> You need to get out more.
>
>>> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.
>
>> I disagree
>
> Your problem.
>
>>>>> Sure, include a dedicated app for the stupids who dont even
>>>>> know what a drive is, but let those who do know what a drive
>>>>> is deal with the device just like any other drive if they want to.
>
>>>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.
>
>>> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.
>
>>>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
>>>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.
>
>>> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.
>
>> I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.
>
> Your problem.
>
>>>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.
>
>>>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.
>
>>>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.
>
>>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>
>>>>> Even someone as stupid as you
>
>>>> Again, why the personal rancor?
>
>>> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.
>
>> I called you no name.
>
> Bare faced lie. You called me another cross-posting Apple hater.
>
>>>> I've not called you any names have I?
>
>>> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'
>
>> I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call you one.
>
> Pathetic.
>
>> Even so, responding by calling me stupid,
>
> Never did.
>
>> bigoted,
>
> Or that.
>
>> incapable of thought
>
> Or that.
>
>> is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain opinion (Apple hater)
>
> Just another of your silly little fantasys.
>
>> based upon their own words.
>
> Just like with your stupidity and incapability of thought. Funny that.
>
>>>>> should be able to have a look at my posting history and see that
>>>>> I hardly ever make any comment about Apple, and that when I
>>>>> do, I have said that the ipod particularly is a very decent
>>>>> product, albeit with some real downsides with iTunes particularly.
>
>>>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.
>
>>> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.
>
>> But relevant enough when you call me stupid
>> because I haven't checked your posting history.
>
> Never ever did that, liar.
>
>>>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
>>>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.
>
>>> Try getting something out of an ipod and
>>> putting it in another media player for starters.
>
>> I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection,
>> not from stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.
>
> And you cant get stuff from somone else's ipod into your own very easily either.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.
>
>>>>>>> Right here, we're talking about the iPod
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.
>
>>>>>>> Gee, right here, you're changing it to cell phones.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?
>
>>>>>>>>>> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone
>>>>>>>>>> ever showed up.
>
>>>>>>> And here you're talking about cell phones
>>>>>>> again, still in response to the iPod interface.
>
>>>>>>>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.
>
>>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.
>
>>>>>>> And now, you're talking about media players.
>
>>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.
>
>>>>>>>>> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
>>>>>>>>> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.
>
>>>>>>>> They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.
>
>>>>>>>>> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't download
>>>>>>>>> music from the computer to the phone, period.
>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.
>
>>>>>>> But we were talking about one of the reasons I'm planning to switch from Verizon.
>
>>>>>>>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.
>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.
>
>>>>>>> Oh, so you're saying that Apple should have produced a cell phone years ago?
>
>>>>>>>>> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the market
>>>>>>>>> before the iPod made no impression on them?
>
>>>>>>>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.
>
>>>>>>> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?
>
>>>>>>>>> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at
>>>>>>>>> Apple to make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally
>>>>>>>>> didn't do) because it was, by God, an Apple, whose computers
>>>>>>>>> they refused to buy.
>
>>>>>>>> Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.
>
>>>>>>> If they hadn't shown an interest in wanting an iPod, Apple
>>>>>>> wouldn't have made the iPod compatible with Windows in the first
>>>>>>> place. But even if you're right, that means that people who had
>>>>>>> avoided both
>>>>>>> Apple and MP3 players in droves suddenly swarmed to get iPods
>>>>>>> because Apple made the iPod available for Windows? Do you
>>>>>>> realize how senseless your thesis is?
>
>>>>>>> I'll tell you one thing, though; if the iPhone won't do voice
>>>>>>> dialing and if it won't upload its address book to my car (which
>>>>>>> has Bluetooth capability for cell phones), I won't buy one. If
>>>>>>> it does one, but not the other, I'll have to decide.
>
>>>>>> It won't surprise me if it doesn't do one or the other.
>
>>>>> Me neither, and when so many of its competitive products do
>>>>> both, AND allow the device to be used just like any other drive...
>
>>>>>> Rarely do I buy a technology product (or even a computer application) that will
>>>>>> do everything I would put in it had I designed it. I suspect we're all that way
>
>>>>> Pity that the functionality she wants is there in the competitive
>>>>> products. With a real keyboard too, which is much better for email.
>
>>>>> AND the competitive products allow you to add 3rd party
>>>>> apps to do what the product itself doesnt come with too.
>
>>>>> Yes, many of the stupids dont enhance their device with 3rd party
>>>>> apps, but anyone with a clue does when some functionality is missing.
>
>>>> Name calling again.
>
>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?
>
>> Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate,
>
> You clearly did just that at the top.
>
>> and I haven't called you any names.
>
> Liar.
>
>>>> I don't get it.
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>> Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me.
>
> Nope.
>
>> Of course if you don't care, there's always the kill-file.
>
> No one give a flying red fuck what fools like you do or do not choose to read.
>
>
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
Actually ALL, as in, EVERY SINGLE ONE.... of Democrats and Republicans are
fuckng idiots voting for the status quo. If you don't vote 3rd party you are
part of the problem and should kill yourself!
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows
"Ura Dippschit" <URN.Idiot@idiots.com> wrote in message
news:URN.Idiot-C10CE0.07422408092007@news.verizon.net...
> In article <x0wEi.8515$hP1.5735@newsfe13.lga>, Nashton <nana@na.na>
> wrote:
>
>> *PLONK* to you too, nymshifter/sockpuppet.
>
> You quoted that whole fucking mess just to tell the world you're going
> to killfile him?
>
> YOU FUCKING MORON! PLONK TO YOU TOO DICKHEAD!!!
He's very adept at creating enemies, where none existed.
50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
became famous as a massive commercial failure.
The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
to have the latest toy).
The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)
The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.
To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
market.
This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
dime-a-dozen on eBay.
-- 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.
In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
> market.
Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
a different planet or living in a cave. The iPhone has been a
massive success. They had a million units sold in the first month.
That is amazing numbers for a first of a kind product from a company
that never sold a single cell phone before the iPhone.
Future iPhones will have more horsepower, more features, and a
developers API. Remember, this is the first cell phone that Apple
has put on the market. The Edsel, in contrast, came 50 years after
Ford started selling cars. It was not a first time effort. Ford
should have known better. Apple is just getting started.
-john-
--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================
> In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
>> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
>> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
>> market.
>
> Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
> a different planet or living in a cave.
Actually, he has been in time warp for the past 50+ years. He finally had to
pull over to find some leaded gasoline for that Edsel that is transporting
him in the ether.
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-4F23A7.12510709092007@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
>> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
>> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
>> market.
>
> Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
> a different planet or living in a cave. The iPhone has been a
> massive success. They had a million units sold in the first month.
> That is amazing numbers for a first of a kind product from a company
> that never sold a single cell phone before the iPhone.
They produced four million ,with the expectation they would be sold out
immediatly. They are still holding more than three million.
Well if they have three million they may have a least one left when my
Verizon contract is up in October. I am out of here with all of my
family as I switch to the very interesting iPhone at the $400 price
level. I have a LG VX9800 that I have used for several years after a
variety of smart phones that sort of worked. The screen of the VX9800
though sharp is too small IMHO. Also I am very angry at the greedy
decisions of Verizon to cripple any decent phone that they carry.
These are just two of the reasons to join the churn leaving Verizion.
On Sep 9, 2:51 pm, "zara" <hed...@outdoorworld.com> wrote:
>
> They produced four million ,with the expectation they would be sold out
> immediatly. They are still holding more than three million.
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C309AA15.39C4F%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 9/9/07 12:51 PM, in article
> john-4F23A7.12510709092007@sn-radius....supernews.net, "John A.
> Weeks
> III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
>> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
>>> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
>>> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the
>>> collector's
>>> market.
>>
>> Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
>> a different planet or living in a cave.
>
> Actually, he has been in time warp for the past 50+ years. He finally had
> to
> pull over to find some leaded gasoline for that Edsel that is transporting
> him in the ether.
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
<mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
>became famous as a massive commercial failure.
>
I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
styled the iPhone is.
The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
a phone called the "Steve".
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
> <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>>50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
>>became famous as a massive commercial failure.
>>
>
> I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
> recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
> styled the iPhone is.
>
> The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
> a phone called the "Steve".
>
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C309AA15.39C4F%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 9/9/07 12:51 PM, in article
> john-4F23A7.12510709092007@sn-radius....supernews.net, "John A.
> Weeks
> III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
>> Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
>>> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
>>> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the
>>> collector's
>>> market.
>>
>> Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
>> a different planet or living in a cave.
>
> Actually, he has been in time warp for the past 50+ years. He finally had
> to
> pull over to find some leaded gasoline for that Edsel that is transporting
> him in the ether.
Yo, Nigger. Go back to your own NG with the other scumbags.
<karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vl39e3p6cvpek5l5ho0tsg6tb78db9mfu8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
> <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>
>>50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
>>became famous as a massive commercial failure.
>>
>
> I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
> recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
> styled the iPhone is.
>
> The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
> a phone called the "Steve".
In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> 50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
> became famous as a massive commercial failure.
>
> The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
> need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
> to have the latest toy).
Mischaracterization; the iPhone is Apple's attempt to do a combination
device better than others have done them. As such, it's evolutionary
and designed to fit existing markets.
The point is defeated entirely.
> The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
> So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
> SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)
iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
implementation. It has the highest res of all phones, seems to have a
good keyboard, 3G isn't a specific need. That it is locked to just one
carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!
> The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.
Wrong. Many of it's competitors are more expensive. Many are less. But
none do exactly what it does, so it's a silly condemnation.
> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
> market.
That would be insanely stupid even if all of the rest of your argument
was right on target. Are you suggesting product failures are products
that, after a while, stop getting made or sold?
> This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
> years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
> that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
> dime-a-dozen on eBay.
Also stupid; Newtons are highly prized by collectors and others because
they were great products. See the difference? Commercial faiilure is
often different from product design failure.
It seems you have a particular problem accepting the idea that some
companies make different products. If that's all this is, then shut up
and find a hole someplace to die in.
If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
things first. Development problems, design problems, and economic
problems are different things -- you can't just pick out any famous
failure from the past and claim it's the fate of a product that you
(and almost you alone) think is a bad one.
In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0709090938030.2342@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> 50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
> became famous as a massive commercial failure.
>
> The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
> need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
> to have the latest toy).
>
> The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
> So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
> SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)
Still can't believe there is yet another moron claiming this is a
low-res phone, and who totally ignores that the very best of needed
apps are already provided.
He's also clearly not tried the keyboard or read the reviews on it.
What an idiot.
In article <Xns99A6B220AABB5sky@207.115.33.102>,
skip <skip[@nospam.com> wrote:
> I loved the car I don't know why it failed.
Lots of reasons:
- the nose was shaped like a lemon
- it was big on the outside but small on the inside
- it has mechanical reliability problems
- recession started in late 1957 slowed sales of high end items
- car was priced too high for a Ford
- car was over-hyped
- they didn't deliver all the high-tech features that were hyped
- it only burned high-test gas
-john-
--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================
"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-AF8ECC.21135809092007@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <Xns99A6B220AABB5sky@207.115.33.102>,
> skip <skip[@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I loved the car I don't know why it failed.
>
> Lots of reasons:
>
> - the nose was shaped like a lemon
Uh, well, the polite term for the nose was 'horse collar'. The unpolite
descriptions said Edsels could mate with older Studebakers.
> - it was big on the outside but small on the inside
It was the same size as the Fords and Mercurys of the era- same platform,
same basic body shell. Just a silly-ass nose and a few gee-gaws like the
pushbutton tranny, which people seemed to love in Mopars a few short years
later.
> - it has mechanical reliability problems
What didn't back then? The problems were the gee-gaws, not the basic car.
> - recession started in late 1957 slowed sales of high end items
This was true.
> - car was priced too high for a Ford
> - car was over-hyped
> - they didn't deliver all the high-tech features that were hyped
All more or less true. There really wasn't enough of a gap between the Ford
and Merc lineup to tuck another whole range in there, especially since there
were no stand-alone dealers, IIRC. And if an Edsel and normal Ford were
side-by-side on the lot, it was pretty obvious they were the same basic car.
So why pay more? This same problem is why GM dropped Olds, and discourages
multi-division franchises that sell badge-engineered twin models at
different price points. The fancy ones always suffer. I giggle every time I
see someone driving the Caddy version of the Chevy pickup or SUV- an extra
20-30 grand, for what again?
> - it only burned high-test gas
>
I don't recall people caring that much back then, since the price difference
was only a few cents. Most V8s needed premium to run without knocking. This
was the early days of the compression wars, after all.
>
aem sends...
Apple's price cutting practice, while heavily criticised by the press,
is not dissimilar to others in the IT industry. The NY Times put the
price drop in context: Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultra-thin
Razr phone for $499 with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six
months later, Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped
the price to $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the
end of 2005, the price was $99.
At $599 the iPhone was one of the most expensive smart phones on the
market. More expensive than a Treo, and more expensive than a
Blackberry. At $399 however it's one of the least expensive. That,
coupled with the fact that the iPhone -- with its very high resolution,
huge screen, and advanced 3D graphics -- makes other phones look like
bricks, and that means that Apple is going to have a runaway success on
its hands.
---
I think the most amazing thing about the iPhone is the screen, it's FAR
better than any computer or hand held device out there, and now at $399
for a great IMAP mail client, full web browser, it's going to roll over
any Microsoft CE product like a steamroller. Bye bye MS with the iPhone.
At 09 Sep 2007 22:40:18 -0600 Bill Gates/Oxford/Gene Jones/et al
wrote:
> This sums it up quite well:
>
> Apple's price cutting practice, while heavily criticised by the
press,
> is not dissimilar to others in the IT industry. The NY Times put
> the price drop in context: Motorola, for instance, introduced the
> ultra-thin Razr phone for $499 with a two-year service contract in
> early 2005. Six months later, Motorola realized it had a hit on its
> hands and dropped the price to $199 in an effort to aim at more
> mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005, the price was $99.
True. However, this brings up an excellent point. Motorola, to this
day, hasn't topped the success of the RAZR. Like the iPhone, it was
a new, head-turning, outstanding, design, which price cuts turned
into a "commodity" item.
This not only alienates the early adopters (believe me- it did with
early RAZR buyers!) but it also hurts sales of similar looking but
more featured products, as Motorola has painfully discovered.
If the iPhone is the "ultimate" phone, as you often post, and
possibly even believe, what incentive is there to go "up the line" to
future higher end versions? If this phone was truly marketable at
$599, the solution to "going for it" would've been to release a less
featured version at a lower price point, rather than abandon the
$500+ point "forever" which is what they essentially did- Steve drew
a line in the sand with the price cut last week- he essentially said
the phone in an iPhone is only worth $99 more than a similarly
equipped iPod. The market will expect him to stick to that.
> I think the most amazing thing about the iPhone is the screen, it's
> FAR better than any computer or hand held device out there, and now
> at $399 for a great IMAP mail client, full web browser, it's going
> to roll over any Microsoft CE product like a steamroller. Bye bye
> MS with the iPhone.
Here we go again, Oxy. Lower-end CE products can be had for $99 or
less- like a T-Mo Dash, Moto Q or AT&T's Blackjack. Sure they are
less featured, but they handle e-mail, web, media, etc. acceptably
well, particularly at their price points.
Where the iPhone may "hurt" WinMo is where it deserves to be hurt-
the people who were buying "business class" devices for "consumer" use,
because no comparable consumer device was available. They may have
wanted better e-mail support than a typical "music phone" offered,
and jumped all the way to, say, a PPC phone to get it. Apple filled
a niche with iPhone that was unserved before- a high-end consumer
media phone with web and e-mail. Prior to it's launch, some
consumers had to "overbuy" to get that functionality.
But once again you present your tired flawed argument- that any one
device, no matter how well designed, can say "bye bye" to a range of
products aimed at other markets. It's like saying the Toyota Prius
is so well designed it will say "bye bye" to motocycles and pick-up
trucks.
At $399 iPhone won't say "bye bye" to $0-$99 smartphones for price-
sensitive buyers, and it won't say "bye bye" to Blackberries and
Treos for business users due to it's "missing" features. It WILL
however, steal plenty of market share from similarly priced RIM and
WinMo phones, as buyers who previously bought them for the "wrong"
reasons can now choose iPhones.
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Mitch wrote:
> Mischaracterization; the iPhone is Apple's attempt to do a combination
> device better than others have done them. As such, it's evolutionary
> and designed to fit existing markets.
It's also a failure. It's a solution in search of a problem.
Where's the market after all the fanboys have bought one.
> iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
> implementation. It has the highest res of all phones,
All you're saying, in effect, is "for many times the price, the iPhone is
less inadequate for browsing the web than other phones."
With one more diagonal inch it could have FOUR TIMES as many pixels.
That would permit web browsing without all the zooming in and out that has
to be done on the iPhone.
> seems to have a
> good keyboard,
The Blackberry crowd doesn't think so. The reports are coming in of
business users who tried iPhone and went back to Blackberry.
> 3G isn't a specific need.
That's like saying that "a hard drive isn't a specific need, everything
you need is on floppy (Mac 128K) or optical disk (first NeXT cube)." The
fanboys were wrong when they said that then, and they are wrong now.
> That it is locked to just one
> carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!
Tell that to the users who discover that T-Mobile has much lower rates
than AT&T and find that they can't switch.
That that to the international travellers who buy a local prepay SIM card
overseas.
>> The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.
> Wrong. Many of it's competitors are more expensive. Many are less. But
> none do exactly what it does, so it's a silly condemnation.
Nobody else made a car with the same cosmetics as an Edsel. That doesn't
make the comparison irrelevant.
The iPhone purports to be a phone. It is not a great phone, but it seems
to work as well as any cheap non-3G GSM phone. Too bad that it costs so
much more.
The iPhone purports to be a portable Internet access device. Too bad that
the screen resolution is so small so you are forced to use the zoom. Too
bad that you are stuck with Safari and can't use far superior choices such
as Firefox. Too bad that you can't download and run third-party apps.
Too bad there's no SDK to permit you to build your own apps.
Because of its limitations, the iPhone isn't a handheld computer. It's
more like a PDA. But it's not a particularly good PDA, especially for
enterprise users who need sync to their corporate system.
>> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
>> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
>> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
>> market.
> That would be insanely stupid even if all of the rest of your argument
> was right on target. Are you suggesting product failures are products
> that, after a while, stop getting made or sold?
Product failures are product lines that die without a successor. They are
evolutionary dead ends.
The Newton is an example; Apple's venture into the PDA market failed even
though it used a lot of technology from Sharp (which is still very much in
the PDA market).
NeXT was a product failure, even though some of its software got salvaged
and incorporated into Mac OS X. A similar fate befell Lisa.
Ricochet was a product failure, even though its zombie hangs on in Denver.
People who had it loved it. Technically, it was far superior to CDPD
which at the time was the only alternative. It still died.
The HP-35, on the other hand, is not a product failure even though it has
been decades since the last HP-35 was manufactured. It has many
successors (some more successful than others) that continue to this day.
DOS and MacOS are not product failures either; although themselves dead,
they were replaced in an evolutionary process by NT and Mac OS X. Their
users see (correctly) a "newer, better" Windows and a "new, better" Mac
that run all their familiar old software.
>> This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
>> years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
>> that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
>> dime-a-dozen on eBay.
> Also stupid; Newtons are highly prized by collectors and others because
> they were great products. See the difference? Commercial faiilure is
> often different from product design failure.
Newtons are NOT "highly prized by collectors". Take a look at prices on
eBay before you make such verifiably false assumptions.
Maybe you highly prize Newtons for your collection. If so, I'll sell you
a complete MP100 box set with extra accessories (modem, memory card) that
for the low low price of $500. Get it while it's hot, fanboy!
> It seems you have a particular problem accepting the idea that some
> companies make different products. If that's all this is, then shut up
> and find a hole someplace to die in.
I see that I touched a fanboy nerve. Good.
> If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
> things first.
Your definition of "intelligent" seems to be fanboy worship. The iPhone
has numerous technology and market problems.
Nothing about iPhone technology is excellent. It is a combination of a
ecletic set of mediocrities. "It's a better web browser than other
phones", but it isn't a particularly great phone. "It's a smaller and
cheaper web browser than a laptop", but it does much less and has a tiny
screen resolution.
The target market for the iPhone are fanboys who go for the cool design
and overlook the technological deficiencies. The suits looked at iPhone
and gone back to Blackberry. Although there certainly are fangirls, most
women look at the iPhone and see an expensive toy.
Now we have international travellers who discover that they better not
bring their iPhone for incoming calls (the way you can for a NORMAL phone)
if they don't want to be hit with thousands of dollars of GPRS roaming
charges due to background fetching of email.
> All you prove is that you are an idiot.
In the language of fanboys, "idiot" means "anyone who does not drink Steve
Jobs' Kool-Aid."
I will thoroughly enjoy the wails of anguish when iPhone dies. It will be
sooner rather than later. iPod Touch is clearly the direction of that
product line. As a product, iPod Touch makes much more sense.
iPhone is destined to go down as an oddball that was a phone too, but more
expensive and with less memory.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
> > Apple's price cutting practice, while heavily criticised by the
> press,
> > is not dissimilar to others in the IT industry. The NY Times put
> > the price drop in context: Motorola, for instance, introduced the
> > ultra-thin Razr phone for $499 with a two-year service contract in
> > early 2005. Six months later, Motorola realized it had a hit on its
> > hands and dropped the price to $199 in an effort to aim at more
> > mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005, the price was $99.
>
> True. However, this brings up an excellent point. Motorola, to this
> day, hasn't topped the success of the RAZR. Like the iPhone, it was
> a new, head-turning, outstanding, design, which price cuts turned
> into a "commodity" item.
But you are forgetting Motorola doesn't have the resources of Apple to
"out innovate" themselves. They are a wandering handset maker now, they
lost their vision years ago.
> This not only alienates the early adopters (believe me- it did with
> early RAZR buyers!) but it also hurts sales of similar looking but
> more featured products, as Motorola has painfully discovered.
Yes, but MOT doesn't have a loyal following such as Apple. Every one of
those first million iPhones went into the hands of people that
understand modern technology, require the best in their lives and have
an interest in making Apple even more successful.
> If the iPhone is the "ultimate" phone, as you often post, and
> possibly even believe, what incentive is there to go "up the line" to
> future higher end versions? If this phone was truly marketable at
> $599, the solution to "going for it" would've been to release a less
> featured version at a lower price point, rather than abandon the
> $500+ point "forever" which is what they essentially did-
It simply opens up room for the $499 16GB model and 3G for people that
live in those markets that 3G actually works, say around Nov 12th? My
4GB's now have more features than when I bought them, they will have
more features again in 2-3 weeks, etc, etc... I think you are forgetting
that OSX is under the hood of these things, so basically anything OSX
can run, the iPhone can run. Think about it...
MOT, Nokia, RIM have no easy way to do this, they are pretty much stuck
with the hardware in place. Apple iPhone owners aren't.
> Steve drew
> a line in the sand with the price cut last week- he essentially said
> the phone in an iPhone is only worth $99 more than a similarly
> equipped iPod. The market will expect him to stick to that.
Sure, and last time I checked the 8GB iPod Touch was selling for $299,
about $99 more than the iPhone, but there is also the 16GB model of the
iPod Touch, so what is missing? can you guess?
> > I think the most amazing thing about the iPhone is the screen, it's
> > FAR better than any computer or hand held device out there, and now
> > at $399 for a great IMAP mail client, full web browser, it's going
> > to roll over any Microsoft CE product like a steamroller. Bye bye
> > MS with the iPhone.
>
> Here we go again, Oxy. Lower-end CE products can be had for $99 or
> less- like a T-Mo Dash, Moto Q or AT&T's Blackjack. Sure they are
> less featured, but they handle e-mail, web, media, etc. acceptably
> well, particularly at their price points.
But they don't have the quality screen, that's probably the most amazing
thing about the iPhone, nobody has it at this price point. Nor the iPod,
nor the Multi-touch interface, WiFi, etc...
> Where the iPhone may "hurt" WinMo is where it deserves to be hurt-
> the people who were buying "business class" devices for "consumer" use,
I really don't see any separation between the two markets. I say, let
the best phone "win" and currently the iPhone is the best in the
consumer space if you want to call it that, and in business, it's
already doing freaky things like this...
Once the SDK is ready for the iPhone, watch out...
> because no comparable consumer device was available. They may have
> wanted better e-mail support than a typical "music phone" offered,
> and jumped all the way to, say, a PPC phone to get it. Apple filled
> a niche with iPhone that was unserved before- a high-end consumer
> media phone with web and e-mail. Prior to it's launch, some
> consumers had to "overbuy" to get that functionality.
yes, and I agree.
> But once again you present your tired flawed argument- that any one
> device, no matter how well designed, can say "bye bye" to a range of
> products aimed at other markets. It's like saying the Toyota Prius
> is so well designed it will say "bye bye" to motocycles and pick-up
> trucks.
I just look at Apple's storied history of wiping out entire markets and
placing their STAMP on the new one. Everyone uses a Mac today, and sure
"most" people use the cheap MS clone of the Mac, but if there wasn't a
Mac, people would still be using DOS, same with the Laser Printer, same
with Wireless, same with the iPod, etc, etc.
> At $399 iPhone won't say "bye bye" to $0-$99 smartphones for price-
> sensitive buyers, and it won't say "bye bye" to Blackberries and
> Treos for business users due to it's "missing" features. It WILL
> however, steal plenty of market share from similarly priced RIM and
> WinMo phones, as buyers who previously bought them for the "wrong"
> reasons can now choose iPhones.
Ah, but you aren't looking far enough forward... The iPod in 2001 only
came in White, Black and White Screen for $399, now look at the iPod
Touch a mere 6 years later. What happened? Full color, touch screen, 8GB
of flash, WiFi, a browser, coverflow, etc, etc... for $99 less.
The exact same thing will happen with the iPhone... you'll have iPhone
nanos, an entire "iPhone" in an ear piece... during the next 6 years.
Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows 
Linear Mode
