> In article <xu45j7mvyt0n$.dlg@blackholespam.net>,
> Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net> wrote:
>
>>> The iPhone is the next iPod, and there is no way to change that fact.
>>
>> I had lunch with my former CEO recently, and after we noticed someone
>> using an Iphone in the restaurant, I asked him if the company was going
>> to consider the new model as a replacement for the nearly 10,000
>> Blackberry 8820's and 8830's they're currently using. He asked me if it
>> had a camera, and when I said, "Yes", he said, "Then absolutely not!" He
>> reminded me of the company's "No cameras allowed" policy, and that he
>> couldn't imagine any company dealing with security issues and/or
>> government contracts allowing them, any more than many government
>> departments will allow them.
>
> the iPhone camera can be disabled via software.
Not good enough for security requirements. If it can be disabled, it can
be enabled. The capability can't exist at all.
>> He said making sure that vendors and other
>> visitors check their camera phones with security is a big enough hassle
>> as it is, and allowing employees to have them would create a huge
>> security risk and extra expense. Good luck with that "enterprise uptake"
>> thing, Apple...
>
> Apple solved that Enterprise concern awhile ago.
By ignoring the lack of enterprise users?
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
Re: Washington Post says Sprint's Instinct sucks compared to iPhone
On Jul 5, 5:51*pm, David Moyer <dav...@world.com> wrote:
> no wonder everyone is calling it the Instink
>
> a good, non-biased review is here:
>
> (ignore the 10 second commercial at the beginning)
>
> http://snipurl.com/2ldmb
Hey that was sorta like the Post article. At least it told the truth
it is a POS.
Oxford <apony@pasture.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:apony-732CB9.14173205072008@news.qwest.net:
> In article <486f83d2$0$7347$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Explain to me why my Blackberry Curve (on Verizon) isn't a "better"
>> device than the iPhone for practical use?
>
> it has a tiny screen, poor keyboard, no multitouch, no UNIX OS, no
> significant developer base.
>
Your opinion means nothing- you've never used one. The application
inventory for Balckberry dwarfs anything that the iPhone has. And before
you stick your foot in it further- you need to investigate more than the
Blackberry site to find them all.
> >> I had lunch with my former CEO recently, and after we noticed someone
> >> using an Iphone in the restaurant, I asked him if the company was going
> >> to consider the new model as a replacement for the nearly 10,000
> >> Blackberry 8820's and 8830's they're currently using. He asked me if it
> >> had a camera, and when I said, "Yes", he said, "Then absolutely not!" He
> >> reminded me of the company's "No cameras allowed" policy, and that he
> >> couldn't imagine any company dealing with security issues and/or
> >> government contracts allowing them, any more than many government
> >> departments will allow them.
> >
> > the iPhone camera can be disabled via software.
>
> Not good enough for security requirements. If it can be disabled, it can
> be enabled. The capability can't exist at all.
then get them without the camera. if a company wants 10,000 of them,
apple will sell them that way. just ask.
or buy a $25 dremel drill for a permanent fix.
> >> He said making sure that vendors and other
> >> visitors check their camera phones with security is a big enough hassle
> >> as it is, and allowing employees to have them would create a huge
> >> security risk and extra expense. Good luck with that "enterprise uptake"
> >> thing, Apple...
> >
> > Apple solved that Enterprise concern awhile ago.
>
> By ignoring the lack of enterprise users?
apple has given them what they want, central camera disabling, central
erase, what else do you want them (or any camera vendor) to do?
> Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I had lunch with my former CEO recently, and after we noticed someone
>>>> using an Iphone in the restaurant, I asked him if the company was going
>>>> to consider the new model as a replacement for the nearly 10,000
>>>> Blackberry 8820's and 8830's they're currently using. He asked me if it
>>>> had a camera, and when I said, "Yes", he said, "Then absolutely not!" He
>>>> reminded me of the company's "No cameras allowed" policy, and that he
>>>> couldn't imagine any company dealing with security issues and/or
>>>> government contracts allowing them, any more than many government
>>>> departments will allow them.
>>>
>>> the iPhone camera can be disabled via software.
>>
>> Not good enough for security requirements. If it can be disabled, it can
>> be enabled. The capability can't exist at all.
>
> then get them without the camera. if a company wants 10,000 of them,
> apple will sell them that way. just ask.
When Apple gets smart enough to offer version without a camera to
enterprise users, the way RIM did with the 8800 series, then maybe the
Iphone will merit some consideration.
> or buy a $25 dremel drill for a permanent fix.
Sure, that ought to do wonders for the warranty.
>>>> He said making sure that vendors and other
>>>> visitors check their camera phones with security is a big enough hassle
>>>> as it is, and allowing employees to have them would create a huge
>>>> security risk and extra expense. Good luck with that "enterprise uptake"
>>>> thing, Apple...
>>>
>>> Apple solved that Enterprise concern awhile ago.
>>
>> By ignoring the lack of enterprise users?
>
> apple has given them what they want, central camera disabling, central
> erase, what else do you want them (or any camera vendor) to do?
They'll have to eliminate the camera completely if they want to sell to
the largest market segment in the world. As it is, their target market
is just consumers looking for the latest new gadget. Maybe that's why
AT&T had to give them the largest subsidy of any smartphone. They knew
they couldn't sell them otherwise.
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
In article <Xns9AD2AAC3D517Ebob@216.196.97.136>,
The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
> > it has a tiny screen, poor keyboard, no multitouch, no UNIX OS, no
> > significant developer base.
> >
>
> Your opinion means nothing- you've never used one. The application
> inventory for Balckberry dwarfs anything that the iPhone has. And before
> you stick your foot in it further- you need to investigate more than the
> Blackberry site to find them all.
I had several clients with them before the iPhone appeared. Now we all
laugh at how primitive they were.
The app library is miniscule compared to the iPhone. 4,000 apps by July
11, and everyone better than what is available on a BB.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-732CB9.14173205072008@news.qwest.net...
>
> The Blackberry is fading quickly now that all the development is
> centered on the iPhone. They had a good 6 year run, but they are dead
> starting July 11th. The iPhone apps alone will be just too compelling.
>
It's statements like the above absurdity that takes you from mere fanboi to complete idiot.
It's one thing talking about a product (or company) you like. It's totally another thing when you
pull crap directly out of you ass like the above.
Remember your wi-fi predictions that have crashed and burned?
Remember how you po-pooed 3G because your jesus phone didn't have it.
I can go on and on recounting the asinine shit you have posted.
Bottom line OxTARD - you don't even have an actual clue, do you?
In article <1olfivbwadbt6$.dlg@blackholespam.net>,
Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net> wrote:
> >> Not good enough for security requirements. If it can be disabled, it can
> >> be enabled. The capability can't exist at all.
> >
> > then get them without the camera. if a company wants 10,000 of them,
> > apple will sell them that way. just ask.
>
> When Apple gets smart enough to offer version without a camera to
> enterprise users, the way RIM did with the 8800 series, then maybe the
> Iphone will merit some consideration.
apple can sell them without cameras, just ask.
> > or buy a $25 dremel drill for a permanent fix.
>
> Sure, that ought to do wonders for the warranty.
what? burnishing the lens would not affect the warranty.
> >>>> He said making sure that vendors and other
> >>>> visitors check their camera phones with security is a big enough hassle
> >>>> as it is, and allowing employees to have them would create a huge
> >>>> security risk and extra expense. Good luck with that "enterprise uptake"
> >>>> thing, Apple...
> >>>
> >>> Apple solved that Enterprise concern awhile ago.
> >>
> >> By ignoring the lack of enterprise users?
> >
> > apple has given them what they want, central camera disabling, central
> > erase, what else do you want them (or any camera vendor) to do?
>
> They'll have to eliminate the camera completely if they want to sell to
> the largest market segment in the world. As it is, their target market
> is just consumers looking for the latest new gadget. Maybe that's why
> AT&T had to give them the largest subsidy of any smartphone. They knew
> they couldn't sell them otherwise.
largest segment in the world? not even close. the companies needing that
level of security only represent a couple 100,000 units at most. it's a
yawner of a segment if you are concerned about sales.
if a company needs mass iphone deployment, just ask apple for no camera,
or disable the camera. both are easy to do.
> > The Blackberry is fading quickly now that all the development is
> > centered on the iPhone. They had a good 6 year run, but they are dead
> > starting July 11th. The iPhone apps alone will be just too compelling.
>
> It's statements like the above absurdity that takes you from mere fanboi to
> complete idiot.
nah, you just aren't a student of history like I am. The Blackberry is
fast becoming the Diamond Rio, the iPhone is just too popular for them
to continue.
you'll see!
> It's one thing talking about a product (or company) you like. It's totally
> another thing when you
> pull crap directly out of you ass like the above.
It's based on solid historical research, I'm just the messenger.
> Remember your wi-fi predictions that have crashed and burned?
> Remember how you po-pooed 3G because your jesus phone didn't have it.
> I can go on and on recounting the asinine shit you have posted.
>
> Bottom line OxTARD - you don't even have an actual clue, do you?
>
> STFU and go away - please.
Ah, but my WiFi predictions have come true, a year later you can go
pretty much anywhere and have free WiFi, and this continues at an ever
accelerating rate. WiMax continues to gather steam as well, so having
the slow, battery eating 3G won't matter to most people with iPhones.
> Enuf AAPL "advocacy".
>
> If there is a single reason not to buy a single AAPL product, it is you.
>
> WTF cares about any product advocated by NG shills like you.
>
> If AAPL had a clue they would make sure you were enjoined from pissing
> more people off.
you just can't handle the truth.
someday, you too will move up to a Mac & iPhone, but until then, you'll
continue to suffer with windows & winmobile.
> Oxford wrote:
>
> Enuf AAPL "advocacy".
>
> If there is a single reason not to buy a single AAPL product, it is you.
>
> WTF cares about any product advocated by NG shills like you.
>
> If AAPL had a clue they would make sure you were enjoined from pissing
> more people off.
If I though he was a representative of Apple instead of just a wannabe
sucking on Steve Job's butt, I would never consider owning another Apple
product. As it is, he's completely cured me of any latent desire I might
have had for an Iphone.
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
Oxford wrote:
> News <News@Group.name> wrote:
>
>
>>Enuf AAPL "advocacy".
>>
>>If there is a single reason not to buy a single AAPL product, it is you.
>>
>>WTF cares about any product advocated by NG shills like you.
>>
>>If AAPL had a clue they would make sure you were enjoined from pissing
>>more people off.
>
>
> you just can't handle the truth.
>
> someday, you too will move up to a Mac & iPhone, but until then, you'll
> continue to suffer with windows & winmobile.
>
> grow up News!
"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AD28E25B3C80noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> 4phun <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in news:20d3ff7e-9cd4-4300-a6c9-
> 9bc2d704e176@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> AT&T will sell to volume buyers who are buying five or more from major
>> corporations starting at 5:30 AM so I expect some main AT&T stores to
>> be sold out before the darn doors even open to the general public.
>>
>>
>
> I'm trying to buy a new Smart CDi diesel Smart. All the Smart dealers and
> Smart USA are playing this same game of holding back, trying to create
> demand in a terrible car sales environment by only selling each dealer a
> handful of cars a month....trying to prevent discounting. They'll
> threaten
> to disband any dealer who discounts.
>
> I may have to go to Canada to get the little diesel I can run on used
> vegetable oil like my old Mercedes and stepvan. SmartUSA won't import
> them, another stupid game that's gonna screw our local dealer out of $15K
> of my cash. Pity....it wasn't my decision.
>
> I don't play these bullshit games with anyone....especially dealers,
> FruitFone or Smart.
>
> The diesel Smart gets over 70mpg and is the absolute carbon emission king
> of any car made, including electrics and hybrids when one considers power
> plant emissions caused by electric car charging. An Italian magazine got
> 3.3 litres/100 km fuel consumption on a REAL trip from Italy to Germany
> through the mountains. They made the whole trip on one little tank of
> diesel fuel...(c; The little diesel engine turns under 3000 RPM, because
> diesel injection MUST happen quite slowly, which should produce a car I
> can
> keep for many years. My 1973 Mercedes 220D has only been overhauled once
> since 1972...36 years. I'm growing tired of fighting its body being
> consumed.
>
> Too bad my dealer doesn't want to sell me one. I took wads of $100 bills
> over there and laid them on his desk. I thought he was gonna shit his
> greedy pants....hee hee.
I read that the diesels couldn't be sold in the U.S. as they didn't meet our
emissions standards
>
"Dutch" <buryit@blackholespam.net> wrote in message news:1kcor30n2e31v.dlg@blackholespam.net...
> News wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>
>> Enuf AAPL "advocacy".
>>
>> If there is a single reason not to buy a single AAPL product, it is you.
>>
>> WTF cares about any product advocated by NG shills like you.
>>
>> If AAPL had a clue they would make sure you were enjoined from pissing
>> more people off.
>
> If I though he was a representative of Apple instead of just a wannabe
> sucking on Steve Job's butt, I would never consider owning another Apple
> product. As it is, he's completely cured me of any latent desire I might
> have had for an Iphone.
>
> --
> Dutch
> Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
> tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
We figured out he was some low level clerk or most likely stockboy at a
backwater Apple store...
With SEVERE delusions of grandeur.. along with the rest of the various
mental illnesses that become quite obvious if one reads the crap he posts.
>
In article <elmop-621286.21013605072008@nntp3.usenetserver.com>,
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> > the iPhone camera can be disabled via software.
>
> Tell that to the Marine who refuses to let you into the facility he has
> the responsibility for guarding.
>
> Fact: no one will ever believe you when you say "oh, but it's been
> disabled in software, don't worry".
but in a corporate environment, with corporate issued iphones, it's
plenty.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-5B55BF.17510805072008@news.qwest.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> > The Blackberry is fading quickly now that all the development is
>> > centered on the iPhone. They had a good 6 year run, but they are dead
>> > starting July 11th. The iPhone apps alone will be just too compelling.
>>
>> It's statements like the above absurdity that takes you from mere fanboi to
>> complete idiot.
>
> nah, you just aren't a student of history like I am. The Blackberry is
> fast becoming the Diamond Rio, the iPhone is just too popular for them
> to continue.
>
> you'll see!
The only thing I see (and many others) is a clueless, rabid fabboi.
With NOTHING to back up the complete bull shit he spews...
Student of history - my ass. Pre-school, at best. Or short bus...?
>
>> It's one thing talking about a product (or company) you like. It's totally
>> another thing when you
>> pull crap directly out of you ass like the above.
>
> It's based on solid historical research, I'm just the messenger.
You are an idiot - nothing more. Certainly not a "messenger"...
Absolutely no "history" at all to back up anythjing you say.
Not a shred.
>
>> Remember your wi-fi predictions that have crashed and burned?
>> Remember how you po-pooed 3G because your jesus phone didn't have it.
>> I can go on and on recounting the asinine shit you have posted.
>>
>> Bottom line OxTARD - you don't even have an actual clue, do you?
>>
>> STFU and go away - please.
>
> Ah, but my WiFi predictions have come true, a year later you can go
> pretty much anywhere and have free WiFi, and this continues at an ever
> accelerating rate. WiMax continues to gather steam as well, so having
> the slow, battery eating 3G won't matter to most people with iPhones.
BZZZZZT - Wrong!!
Your "WiFi predictions" have NOT come true - the exact opposite. Almost
all of the muni WiFi projects have failed. Crash and burned you dolt.
WiFi has gone nowhere - and it won't. Then you (still) are wrong about 3G.
It (may) be what actually makes a difference worldwide with your beloved
ifruit phone - I find it extremely laughable that the actual thing that (may)
help the damn thing is the thing you are negative about above. More proof
that you don't have even a single clue.
BTW, WiMax is a completely different animal (NOT WiFi) and the jury is out.
Sprint and Clearwire might pull it off - but then your beloved ifruit phone is
exclusively AT&T - it will NEVER work on WiMax in the near future anyway.
You are again very unclear of what you are talking about - as always.
nospam wrote:
> In article <486f83d2$0$7347$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Carl
> <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, while it's hard to deny these days that Apple's products are
>> perhaps "great", let us not forget that Apple was on the verge of
>> bankruptcy perhaps 5 years ago. Macs weren't selling and few people
>> were interested.
>
> nonense. apple has had continuous profitable quarterly earnings for
> the last decade. prior to that they did have some unprofitable
> quarters, but they had (and still have) a huge amount of cash in the
> bank and were in no danger of bankrupcy.
>
>> I believe
>> it was Microsoft who bailed them out (I'm open to correction on the
>> specifics) because they would have been left as a "monopoly", a bad
>> thing with government regulation.
>
> microsoft paid apple $150 million in exchange for non-voting stock ten
> years ago for an out of court settlement regarding patent disputes and
> other intellectual property. since apple's stock went up in value by
> quite a bit, the 'punishment' turned out to be quite lucrative for
> microsoft.
>
While my time frame was wrong (it's been 11 years, not 5), Apple indeed
appeared to be in trouble 11 years ago and appears to have been salvaged by
that deal with Microsoft that you're minimizing as merely an "out-of-court
settlement". Please watch the following video and particularly note the part
where Jobs himself says, "Microsoft is going to be part of the game with us
as we restore this company back to health..." (p.s.- watch the video; you
can choose to ignore the diggs commentary which preceeds it if you feel it's
too biased):
In article <48703264$0$7321$607ed4bc@cv.net>, Carl
<crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> While my time frame was wrong (it's been 11 years, not 5), Apple indeed
> appeared to be in trouble 11 years ago and appears to have been salvaged by
> that deal with Microsoft that you're minimizing as merely an "out-of-court
> settlement".
apple was grossly mismanaged and was unprofitable during most of the
90s, and they were losing on the order of $1 billion per year. do you
think just $150 million would be enough to salvage them? apple had a
huge stash of cash then (and an even bigger stash now) and they were
not in danger of going bankrupt.
> Please watch the following video and particularly note the part
> where Jobs himself says, "Microsoft is going to be part of the game with us
> as we restore this company back to health..." (p.s.- watch the video; you
> can choose to ignore the diggs commentary which preceeds it if you feel it's
> too biased):
and steve mentions the patent disputes early on. it was a smart
business deal that helped both companies.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
news:apony-7BCCD9.20302605072008@news.qwest.net...
> In article <elmop-621286.21013605072008@nntp3.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> > the iPhone camera can be disabled via software.
>>
>> Tell that to the Marine who refuses to let you into the facility he
>> has
>> the responsibility for guarding.
>>
>> Fact: no one will ever believe you when you say "oh, but it's been
>> disabled in software, don't worry".
>
> but in a corporate environment, with corporate issued iphones, it's
> plenty.
Thank you for that statement. It proves positively that you know nothing
about corporate security. Telling a guard that "it's disabled in
software" will do nothing. If there is a lens on the device, whether
"burnished with a Dremel" or "disabled in software," (your suggestions -
not Apple's) you will not carry it past the guard station. That's like
telling a TSA agent that the gun you're carrying doesn't have a firing
pin. And lest you think that the market for non-camera phones id limited
to a couple hundred thousand, you again prove that you know little, if
anything, about corporate security that affects MILLIONS of employees.
Oxford, I have one question for you for which I already know you will
give a non-responsive answer: In light of the fact that absolutely no
one - not one single post - on any of the many NG's you have posted to
has agreed with anything you have to say why do you continue to spout
such nonsense? Are you being paid to do this? Do you get off on the
abuse? The IPhone is designed for fanbois just like you - be happy, feel
superior to us, and enjoy your new toy du jour. The rest of us luddites
will just continue to toil away in the darkness with products we've
found to meet our own unique needs.
When the first iPhone came out you told us that it was "game over" and
all the other carriers would disappear as well as all the other cell
phone makers. That hasn't happened yet and is not about to anytime
soon. You were wrong then and nothing has changed.
Oxford <apony@pasture.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:apony-288883.17270205072008@news.qwest.net:
> In article <Xns9AD2AAC3D517Ebob@216.196.97.136>,
> The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> > it has a tiny screen, poor keyboard, no multitouch, no UNIX OS, no
>> > significant developer base.
>> >
>>
>> Your opinion means nothing- you've never used one. The application
>> inventory for Balckberry dwarfs anything that the iPhone has. And
>> before you stick your foot in it further- you need to investigate
>> more than the Blackberry site to find them all.
>
> I had several clients with them before the iPhone appeared. Now we all
> laugh at how primitive they were.
Apple store janitors have clients? I don't want to ask....
Oxford <apony@pasture.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:apony-4FCCF5.16583305072008@news.qwest.net:
> Dutch <buryit@blackholespam.net> wrote:
>
>> >> I had lunch with my former CEO recently, and after we noticed
>> >> someone using an Iphone in the restaurant, I asked him if the
>> >> company was going to consider the new model as a replacement for
>> >> the nearly 10,000 Blackberry 8820's and 8830's they're currently
>> >> using. He asked me if it had a camera, and when I said, "Yes", he
>> >> said, "Then absolutely not!" He reminded me of the company's "No
>> >> cameras allowed" policy, and that he couldn't imagine any company
>> >> dealing with security issues and/or government contracts allowing
>> >> them, any more than many government departments will allow them.
>> >
>> > the iPhone camera can be disabled via software.
>>
>> Not good enough for security requirements. If it can be disabled, it
>> can be enabled. The capability can't exist at all.
>
> then get them without the camera. if a company wants 10,000 of them,
> apple will sell them that way. just ask.
Oxford <apony@pasture.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:apony-5B55BF.17510805072008@news.qwest.net:
> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> > The Blackberry is fading quickly now that all the development is
>> > centered on the iPhone. They had a good 6 year run, but they are
>> > dead starting July 11th. The iPhone apps alone will be just too
>> > compelling.
>>
>> It's statements like the above absurdity that takes you from mere
>> fanboi to complete idiot.
>
> nah, you just aren't a student of history like I am. The Blackberry is
> fast becoming the Diamond Rio, the iPhone is just too popular for them
> to continue.
>
> you'll see!
>
>> It's one thing talking about a product (or company) you like. It's
>> totally another thing when you
>> pull crap directly out of you ass like the above.
>
> It's based on solid historical research, I'm just the messenger.
>
>> Remember your wi-fi predictions that have crashed and burned?
>> Remember how you po-pooed 3G because your jesus phone didn't have it.
>> I can go on and on recounting the asinine shit you have posted.
>>
>> Bottom line OxTARD - you don't even have an actual clue, do you?
>>
>> STFU and go away - please.
>
> Ah, but my WiFi predictions have come true, a year later you can go
> pretty much anywhere and have free WiFi,
Wrong again, tard. No free wifi in my neighborhood. I can hit 4 routers
form my living room and all are locked.
> "Dutch" <buryit@blackholespam.net> wrote in message news:1kcor30n2e31v.dlg@blackholespam.net...
>> News wrote:
>>
>>> Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>> Enuf AAPL "advocacy".
>>>
>>> If there is a single reason not to buy a single AAPL product, it is you.
>>>
>>> WTF cares about any product advocated by NG shills like you.
>>>
>>> If AAPL had a clue they would make sure you were enjoined from pissing
>>> more people off.
>>
>> If I though he was a representative of Apple instead of just a wannabe
>> sucking on Steve Job's butt, I would never consider owning another Apple
>> product. As it is, he's completely cured me of any latent desire I might
>> have had for an Iphone.
>
> We figured out he was some low level clerk or most likely stockboy at a
> backwater Apple store...
>
> With SEVERE delusions of grandeur.. along with the rest of the various
> mental illnesses that become quite obvious if one reads the crap he posts.
Yep, he does seem to be severely in need of professional help...
--
Dutch
Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
> > microsoft paid apple $150 million in exchange for non-voting stock ten
> > years ago for an out of court settlement regarding patent disputes and
> > other intellectual property. since apple's stock went up in value by
> > quite a bit, the 'punishment' turned out to be quite lucrative for
> > microsoft.
> >
> While my time frame was wrong (it's been 11 years, not 5), Apple indeed
> appeared to be in trouble 11 years ago and appears to have been salvaged by
> that deal with Microsoft that you're minimizing as merely an "out-of-court
> settlement". Please watch the following video and particularly note the part
> where Jobs himself says, "Microsoft is going to be part of the game with us
> as we restore this company back to health..." (p.s.- watch the video; you
> can choose to ignore the diggs commentary which preceeds it if you feel it's
> too biased):
>
> http://digg.com/apple/Video:_Macworl...ling_Apple_out
> _of_bankruptcy)
but apple wasn't even close to bankruptcy, they had $1.1 billion in pure
cash at the time. the "settlement" was mainly to resolve "patent
disputes" with MS, and for MS to get IE as the default browser on the
Mac to compete against Netscape, and continue to develop MS Office... if
you had bothered to watch the entire Keynote.
sure, apple wasn't in the greatest of health at the time, but they spent
$400 million on a new OS 8 months prior to that keynote, so they weren't
exactly poor either.
In article <s_mdnWm9eaMRou3VnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"BruceR" <bruceNO@SPAMwhoever.com> wrote:
> Thank you for that statement. It proves positively that you know nothing
> about corporate security. Telling a guard that "it's disabled in
> software" will do nothing. If there is a lens on the device, whether
> "burnished with a Dremel" or "disabled in software," (your suggestions -
> not Apple's) you will not carry it past the guard station. That's like
> telling a TSA agent that the gun you're carrying doesn't have a firing
> pin. And lest you think that the market for non-camera phones id limited
> to a couple hundred thousand, you again prove that you know little, if
> anything, about corporate security that affects MILLIONS of employees.
>
> Oxford, I have one question for you for which I already know you will
> give a non-responsive answer: In light of the fact that absolutely no
> one - not one single post - on any of the many NG's you have posted to
> has agreed with anything you have to say why do you continue to spout
> such nonsense? Are you being paid to do this? Do you get off on the
> abuse? The IPhone is designed for fanbois just like you - be happy, feel
> superior to us, and enjoy your new toy du jour. The rest of us luddites
> will just continue to toil away in the darkness with products we've
> found to meet our own unique needs.
>
> When the first iPhone came out you told us that it was "game over" and
> all the other carriers would disappear as well as all the other cell
> phone makers. That hasn't happened yet and is not about to anytime
> soon. You were wrong then and nothing has changed.
someday, you'll catch up to the life i live, until then... i can only
laugh at your ignorance surrounding cameras in the enterprise. the
iphone is the most significant phone development since electronic
telephone switching happened in the mid 1960's.
now the world has its first successful unix cell phone, and it's
upsetting Verizon and others to extreme levels. Ivan Seidenberg of
Verizon how thinks the success of the iPhone is a "conspiracy" and
"hates Steve Jobs".
too funny, that's a company that had a chance to have the greatest
electronic device of this generation and his company failed to win
Apple's interest. that will perhaps go down as one of the biggest
blunders of american business when this is all over. Verizon and others
are dead in the water unless they can win the iPhone.
it's going to get really interesting staring in 6 days! see ya on the
other side!
> > If I though he was a representative of Apple instead of just a wannabe
> > sucking on Steve Job's butt, I would never consider owning another Apple
> > product. As it is, he's completely cured me of any latent desire I might
> > have had for an Iphone.
> >
> > --
> > Dutch
> > Sprint/Motorola RAZR V3m
> > tethered to PCLinuxOS 2008
>
> We figured out he was some low level clerk or most likely stockboy at a
> backwater Apple store...
>
> With SEVERE delusions of grandeur.. along with the rest of the various
> mental illnesses that become quite obvious if one reads the crap he posts.
you just can't stand factual information, so you become upset when
correct information is presented to you.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message news:apony-655B78.23312005072008@news.qwest.net...
> "Ness-Net" <richard.nodamn@nessnet.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> We figured out he was some low level clerk or most likely stockboy at a
>> backwater Apple store...
>>
>> With SEVERE delusions of grandeur.. along with the rest of the various
>> mental illnesses that become quite obvious if one reads the crap he posts.
>
> you just can't stand factual information, so you become upset when
> correct information is presented to you.
>
> poor nessy, can win for losing.
#1 - You have presented ZERO "factual information" not now - not ever.
Kinda hard to lose to your complete bull shit - and I haven't. I HAVE
(multiple times) pointed out just how full of crap YOU are.
So it's actually me = winner.
#2. I am certainly not "upset" - more like entertained and amused. You are
so delusional, maybe a bit of pity for the mentally ill retard is in order.
"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
news:apony-6E0B68.23240405072008@news.qwest.net...
> In article <s_mdnWm9eaMRou3VnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "BruceR" <bruceNO@SPAMwhoever.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for that statement. It proves positively that you know
>> nothing
>> about corporate security. Telling a guard that "it's disabled in
>> software" will do nothing. If there is a lens on the device, whether
>> "burnished with a Dremel" or "disabled in software," (your
>> suggestions -
>> not Apple's) you will not carry it past the guard station. That's
>> like
>> telling a TSA agent that the gun you're carrying doesn't have a
>> firing
>> pin. And lest you think that the market for non-camera phones id
>> limited
>> to a couple hundred thousand, you again prove that you know little,
>> if
>> anything, about corporate security that affects MILLIONS of
>> employees.
>>
>> Oxford, I have one question for you for which I already know you will
>> give a non-responsive answer: In light of the fact that absolutely no
>> one - not one single post - on any of the many NG's you have posted
>> to
>> has agreed with anything you have to say why do you continue to spout
>> such nonsense? Are you being paid to do this? Do you get off on the
>> abuse? The IPhone is designed for fanbois just like you - be happy,
>> feel
>> superior to us, and enjoy your new toy du jour. The rest of us
>> luddites
>> will just continue to toil away in the darkness with products we've
>> found to meet our own unique needs.
>>
>> When the first iPhone came out you told us that it was "game over"
>> and
>> all the other carriers would disappear as well as all the other cell
>> phone makers. That hasn't happened yet and is not about to anytime
>> soon. You were wrong then and nothing has changed.
>
> someday, you'll catch up to the life i live, until then... i can only
> laugh at your ignorance surrounding cameras in the enterprise. the
> iphone is the most significant phone development since electronic
> telephone switching happened in the mid 1960's.
>
> now the world has its first successful unix cell phone, and it's
> upsetting Verizon and others to extreme levels. Ivan Seidenberg of
> Verizon how thinks the success of the iPhone is a "conspiracy" and
> "hates Steve Jobs".
>
> too funny, that's a company that had a chance to have the greatest
> electronic device of this generation and his company failed to win
> Apple's interest. that will perhaps go down as one of the biggest
> blunders of american business when this is all over. Verizon and
> others
> are dead in the water unless they can win the iPhone.
>
> it's going to get really interesting staring in 6 days! see ya on the
> other side!
As expected you failed to answer any of the direct questions put to you
with direct answers. Standard fanboi behavior demonstrated by simply
spouting the same lines over and over without ever addressing a direct
question. Yes, just 6 more days till you make love to your new toy. The
rest of us will just watch and smile.
Re: iPhone line begins 7 days before launch! 
Linear Mode
