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.

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.

Justin posted to five newsgroups:
> Rocky Mountain News
>
> Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

Hey, aren't you the guy fussing and fuming elsewhere about all the
iPhone hype being posted to those five newsgroups?

--
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable. We need to learn that "inevitable" is
neither a synonym for "good" nor for "bad."
-- WWG

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.

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.

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.

>
> Fuck off.
>

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.
>
>

*PLONK*

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.
>
>

*PLONK* to you too, nymshifter/sockpuppet.

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!

MuahMan wrote:
>
<nothing worth reading or cross-posting>

This relates to Verizon-how?

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!!!

"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
================================================== ====================

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.

"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.


Why don't you drink some leaded gas, Jackass?

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".

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote in 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".
>

I loved the car I don't know why it failed.

"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".

They should call it the "handjobs".

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.

All you prove is that you are an idiot.