The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
By David LaGesse
Posted 6/22/07
Face it, the iPhone can only have so many folks swooning if it's got raw
sex appeal. This is one device that will appeal to both genders, leaving us
to ponder just what will draw people when Apple launches the phone on June
29–and what everyone should be wary of.
Seven attractions:
Striking looks: And we don't just meet the slim, hot look of the case. This
phone has a large, beautiful, and bright screen–which is all the more
surprising since it's a touch-screen, which is usually less vivid. The
screen measures 3.5 inches across, bigger than just about anything made for
the hand, and can produce as good an image as a typical desktop monitor did
just a few years ago.
Friendly demeanor: This looks to be one of the easiest cellphones to get to
know and use. Apple does software well and has packed nearly 30 years of
experience into lists that scroll with the flick of a finger, photos that
expand and shrink with a stretch of a thumb, and a screen that gets wider
or taller with the twist of a wrist. In short, the iPhone strives to become
one with your hands.
Smarts: The phone comes with all the elements of a smart phone, including
an address book, calendar, maps, notes, and, of course, E-mail. A
full-fledged Web browser comes with the system, which also is a version of
the OS X that runs Apple's computers. That means it can do several things
at once, such as send a photo to a friend while checking the calendar.
Good voice: The iPhone hails from the folks who brought you the iPod, and
you can bet this will be the best phone yet for listening to tunes. Plus it
will work with the hundreds of iPod speakers and other accessories out
there, including docks built into your Mercedes or Volkswagen, and maybe
even at your seat on a Boeing Dreamliner. Just be sure to turn off the
wireless before take-off.
Sensitive communicator: Besides a cellphone, the iPhone has built-in WiFi
and Bluetooth, which should make it easy to connect to high-speed Internet
hot spots and companion devices, like headsets. The phone itself is no
slacker, with the industry's first visual voice mail: Your messages show up
on a list, making it easy to find the one you want to hear first.
Buff muscles: With built-in memory of at least 4 gigabytes, the phone has
the heft to carry a goodly amount of music, photos, and videos.
Worldliness: The iPhone is ready to roam the globe, with its four bands of
cellphone reception.
Seven reasons to be wary:
Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date. That's even
before the cost of a monthly voice and data plan, whose prices AT&T and
Apple haven't yet revealed. Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about
half of that $500, suggesting that the company is milking the early
adopters.
No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year contract
with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service. And unlike just about
every other phone out there, there is no discount on the purchase price for
signing that two-year agreement.
Touchiness: There's only one key, and that simply brings you back the
phone's main menu. Not having a mechanical keyboard means you'll need to
focus your eyes on a virtual keypad to dial a phone number or a virtual
keyboard to text a message. The soft versions look responsive, but they can
never perform as well as hard keys.
Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving photos,
unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi. But the WiFi can't
be used to connect to other iPhones, unlike the Microsoft Zune, nor can it
sync music with a desktop computer.
Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security and ease
of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications developed for the
Web, but that means having to connect first to the Internet, and that's
slow with the iPhone unless it's within range of a WiFi network.
Questionable stamina: Apple promises eight hours of talk time, but analysts
suggest that's optimistic—and that using WiFi or playing videos will cut
that time significantly. Plus, it appears users won't be able to change the
battery, and they'll have to send it back to Apple for a new one.
Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
camera. It should even have an optical zoom.
avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote in news:ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148
@anonymous.poster:
> which is all the more
> surprising since it's a touch-screen
I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen has
been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff it
touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
No WONDER cellphone companies want us to have it....REVENUES!
Larry
--
"Hello? No, ma'am. I'm in America, not Vietnam! How long have you been
listening to us? An HOUR?! Wow!...."
In article <ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148@anonymous.poster>, Avery
<avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote:
Only looking at this side right now:
> Seven reasons to be wary:
>
> Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date.
> Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about
> half of that $500, suggesting that the company is milking the early
> adopters.
I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered
close.
Anybody know of one?
> No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year contract
> with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service.
People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any service
contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
> And unlike just about
> every other phone out there, there is no discount on the purchase price for
> signing that two-year agreement.
Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T. How can we
claim there is no discount, when they are pricing the whole thing as a
package in the first place?
You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know the
price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)
> Touchiness:
Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.
> Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the
only one.
> making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving photos,
Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.
> unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi. But the WiFi can't
> be used to connect to other iPhones,
Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or
exchange? Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices,
anyway? Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the
wireless arena?
> unlike the Microsoft Zune,
This is silliness embodied. The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its
wireless, and has almost nothing to compare to. Who wants to send
anything for just three days?
> nor can it
> sync music with a desktop computer.
Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.
> Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
_want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
> programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security and ease
> of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications developed for the
> Web, but that means having to connect first to the Internet, and that's
> slow with the iPhone unless it's within range of a WiFi network.
I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
people are assuming it.
> Questionable stamina:
Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
comes close, you'd be totally wrong!
> Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway. Cameras in
phones are junky. Good arguments for banning them.
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote
> Avery <avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote
> Only looking at this side right now:
>> Seven reasons to be wary:
>> Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date.
>> Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about half of that $500,
>> suggesting that the company is milking the early adopters.
> I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
> components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered close.
> Anybody know of one?
>> No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year
>> contract with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service.
> People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any
> service contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
Anyone with a clue prefers no contract so you can use the phone
with whoever currently provides the best value service and you
can change to a better value one when one of those shows up.
>> And unlike just about every other phone out there, there is no
>> discount on the purchase price for signing that two-year agreement.
> Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T.
> How can we claim there is no discount, when they are
> pricing the whole thing as a package in the first place?
True.
> You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know
> the price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
> comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)
>> Touchiness:
> Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.
Yeah, without some form of touchscreen lock, its not going to be viable.
Its unlikely that it doesnt have something tho.
>> Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
> Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the only one.
It would be better if it could use that too tho.
>> making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving photos,
> Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.
>> unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi.
>> But the WiFi can't be used to connect to other iPhones,
> Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or exchange?
Anything anyone is likely to want to move or exchange, any of the content.
> Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices, anyway?
Much more limited range.
> Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the wireless arena?
>> unlike the Microsoft Zune,
> This is silliness embodied.
Nope.
> The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its wireless, and has almost
> nothing to compare to. Who wants to send anything for just three days?
Irrelevant to whether that feature is useful.
He didnt say its worse than the Zune, just that the Zune can do THAT.
>> nor can it sync music with a desktop computer.
> Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.
>> Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party
> tools when you haven't tried the built-in tools.
I want to be able to use the best tools available.
> This isn't a PDA in that sense; it's supposed to be a finished
> product for which you won't _want_ to add anything more.
How odd that so many other high end phones can do that.
> (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
Yep, because nothing is ever supplied with the best in all areas.
>> programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security
>> and ease of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications
>> developed for the Web, but that means having to connect first to the
>> Internet, and that's slow with the iPhone unless it's within range
>> of a WiFi network.
> I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
> tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
> internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
> as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
> people are assuming it.
>> Questionable stamina:
> Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
> know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
> comes close, you'd be totally wrong!
>> Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
> Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway.
> Cameras in phones are junky.
Plenty of phones have decent cameras.
> Good arguments for banning them.
Nope, there are plenty of situations where what is in the phone is quite
adequate with the best high end phones and that approach has the real
advantage that you will always have the camera handy if you need it.
> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
> when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
> sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
> _want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
>
There is one problem: There is no way in hell that the manufactuer
could of thought of all the
possible uses of the phone, or what every user may want. Maybe I want
to do some scripting (like a batch file)
to execute various different functions and have it all tied to a soft
key so I don't have to trundle through
menus and selections. Wait, that tool isn't available?! OOPS! Maybe I
want to be able to upload pictures to my own web server, or send it to
an e-mail address used for that purpose with the touch of a button.
Oh
wait, can't do that either? Never ASS-U-ME that the tools on the phone
is enough for ALL users' needs.
On Jun 22, 6:04 pm, avery23...@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech...apple.proscons...
>
> The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
> By David LaGesse
> Posted 6/22/07
> Face it, the iPhone can only have so many folks swooning if it's got raw
> sex appeal. This is one device that will appeal to both genders, leaving us
> to ponder just what will draw people when Apple launches the phone on June
> 29-and what everyone should be wary of.
>
What I want is something that can be used as a pocket computer that
dosen't force me to go through
some middle man to load apps on it. I want to load anything I damn
well please (within hardware capatability that is) without the damn
thing squawking "NO NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT! PLAY WITH THIS
RATTLE INSTEAD!" at me. I want to have full directory access to the
PDA (which this thing seems to
to be, simaler to a Treo or a Blackberry), and if it's not built in,
allow me to install a utility to do it, and don't
try to hide shit, or play games with me, or otherwise attempt to
thwart my attempts at accessing the files. If this phone can do it,
good, if not, I'll just chalk it up to another expensive toy for
overgrown teenyboppers
At the peice this is being sold at, I expect an uncrippled pocket
computer and no less.
<rant mode on> The one thing that really bothers me about cell phones
is that they are being used
to get users used to the idea that the phone (i'll call it a computer
for now on scince that's what modern
cellphones basicly are) isn't really theirs, and that companies and
only companies have the right to
decide what you are allowed to run on the computer you bought, down to
the very programs on it in some
cases. Anything else is forbidden, and anybody who tries to use the
computer for anything other that
what the companies explicity says must be an evil hacker or an outlaw.
This is like the Trusted Computing
bullshit, but even more draconian. <rant mode off>
In article <5e3j4mF35be5kU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any
> > service contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
>
> Anyone with a clue prefers no contract so you can use the phone
> with whoever currently provides the best value service and you
> can change to a better value one when one of those shows up.
No need to get insulting; I can follow.
The point you are making is against an exclusive carrier contract, not
against two years of service. People use the same reason to make two
entirely different points against the device, which is invalid.
Certainly exclusivity is undesirable for consumers; it also happens to
have been entirely necessary. But having a contract is not the bad
part.
> > Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the only
> > one.
> It would be better if it could use that too tho.
Sure, but this doesn't seem to be far off. Apple may even be planning
for it, and enable it in firmware, like with 802.11N.
> > The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its wireless, and has almost
> > nothing to compare to. Who wants to send anything for just three days?
> Irrelevant to whether that feature is useful.
Is it? That feature specifically builds in the limitation. It has no
other uses. It prevents the usefulness of such a feature in other ways.
> He didnt say its worse than the Zune, just that the Zune can do THAT.
He DID say it was worse; he was making a comparison. And since it's
something the Zune does very horribly, and most people think it's an
embarassment, it's a weird example.
> > This isn't a PDA in that sense; it's supposed to be a finished
> > product for which you won't _want_ to add anything more.
>
> How odd that so many other high end phones can do that.
Not really; none of the other companies are renowned for software
development. Most analysts suggest they aren't very skilled at making
it work better (Palm notwithstanding.) Many suggest Apple's lead may
focus them on how to develop better software and a consistent OS.
In any case, Apple deserves at least respect now for what they have
done; we should criticize it when we know of a real problem, not just
because we assume there will be a problem.
> There is one problem: There is no way in hell that the manufactuer
> could of thought of all the
> possible uses of the phone, or what every user may want. Maybe I want
> to do some scripting (like a batch file)
> to execute various different functions and have it all tied to a soft
> key so I don't have to trundle through
> menus and selections. Wait, that tool isn't available?! OOPS! Maybe I
> want to be able to upload pictures to my own web server, or send it to
> an e-mail address used for that purpose with the touch of a button.
> Oh
> wait, can't do that either? Never ASS-U-ME that the tools on the phone
> is enough for ALL users' needs.
sure you can, you obviously did hear what happened last week.
Mitch wrote:
> In any case, Apple deserves at least respect now for what they have
> done; we should criticize it when we know of a real problem, not just
> because we assume there will be a problem.
Especially we shouldn't criticize the lack of features
Apple has clearly advertised, such as the ability to
lock the touch-screen.
--
Wes Groleau
There ain't no right wing,
there ain't no left wing.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
(apologies to Jim Krueger)
--
Wes Groleau
------
"The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
they know that most men can see better than they can think."
-- James Dobson
"Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:220620071710278727%mitch@hawaii.rr...
> In article <ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148@anonymous.poster>, Avery
> <avery23455@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Only looking at this side right now:
>
>> Seven reasons to be wary:
>>
>> Gold-digging: Starting at $500, the iPhone is one pricey date.
>> Analysts estimate that Apple's cost is about
>> half of that $500, suggesting that the company is milking the early
>> adopters.
> I've yet to see any cost analysis that had a good idea what specific
> components would be in it, let alone one that could be considered
> close.
> Anybody know of one?
>
>> No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year
>> contract
>> with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service.
> People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any service
> contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
>
>> And unlike just about
>> every other phone out there, there is no discount on the purchase price
>> for
>> signing that two-year agreement.
> Stupid criticism; the deal is specific to Cingular/AT&T. How can we
> claim there is no discount, when they are pricing the whole thing as a
> package in the first place?
> You can't show anything about a supposed 'discount' until you know the
> price without the contract! (or, you could say that EVERY purchase
> comes with a huge discount -- but it's still the only price known.)
>
>> Touchiness:
> Valid; we'll have to wait to see how people like it.
>
>> Lack of sociability: The iPhone won't run on AT&T's fastest data network,
> Not on the fastest, but on a fast network. The fastest isn't also the
> only one.
>
>> making it painfully slow for Web browsing or sending and receiving
>> photos,
> Relatively slow; and it's not locked into that alone.
>
>> unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi. But the WiFi
>> can't
>> be used to connect to other iPhones,
> Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or
> exchange? Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices,
> anyway? Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the
> wireless arena?
>
>> unlike the Microsoft Zune,
> This is silliness embodied. The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its
> wireless, and has almost nothing to compare to. Who wants to send
> anything for just three days?
>
>> nor can it
>> sync music with a desktop computer.
> Whoa -- too early, dude. You don't know that.
>
>> Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party tools
> when you haven't tried the built-in tools. This isn't a PDA in that
> sense; it's supposed to be a finished product for which you won't
> _want_ to add anything more. (Yet many just won't accept that thought.)
>
>> programs for the iPhone, saying it wants to ensure tight security and
>> ease
>> of use. The phone's Safari browser can run applications developed for the
>> Web, but that means having to connect first to the Internet, and that's
>> slow with the iPhone unless it's within range of a WiFi network.
> I don't think either of those are true; the third-party developer's
> tools use Safari, but do we actually know it can't be stored
> internally, and that it has to be online, and that it has to be built
> as a Web tool? None of that is necessarily true, so I don't know why
> people are assuming it.
>
>> Questionable stamina:
> Right: questionable. No criticism against, none for. We simply don't
> know. Can't use it as a point against it, especially because if it
> comes close, you'd be totally wrong!
>
>> Weak eye: A phone this expensive should do better than a 2-megapixel
> Maybe, but anyone who cares doesn't use those, anyway. Cameras in
> phones are junky. Good arguments for banning them.
How come you didn't critique the "good" points, apple fanboi?
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote
>>>> No prenup: Purchasing an iPhone will force you to sign a two-year
>>>> contract with AT&T, which will provide voice and data service.
>>> People keep harping on this, like they want a phone without any
>>> service contract. Aren't you going to expect to use it for two years?
>> Anyone with a clue prefers no contract so you can use the phone
>> with whoever currently provides the best value service and you
>> can change to a better value one when one of those shows up.
> No need to get insulting;
That wasnt insulting.
> I can follow.
We'll see...
> The point you are making is against an exclusive
> carrier contract, not against two years of service.
Nope. Many prefer to be able to change the provider of the service in the
first 2 years if a better service provider shows up. Better in terms of
coverage, price, etc etc etc instead of being locked in for 2 years even if
you decide that the original service provider is less than the best available.
Many will have changed the phone after 2 years.
> People use the same reason to make two entirely
> different points against the device, which is invalid.
Nope.
> Certainly exclusivity is undesirable for consumers; it also happens to
> have been entirely necessary. But having a contract is not the bad part.
Yes it is if you find a better service provider in that 2 years and
that is academic because you are locked into a 2 year contract.
>>> Not on the fastest, but on a fast network.
>>> The fastest isn't also the only one.
>> It would be better if it could use that too tho.
> Sure, but this doesn't seem to be far off. Apple may even be
> planning for it, and enable it in firmware, like with 802.11N.
It would be even better if they made that clear right from the outset.
>>>> unless you happen to be at a coffee shop with free WiFi.
>>>> But the WiFi can't be used to connect to other iPhones,
>>> Whoa -- don't know that yet. But why? What do you want to move or exchange?
>> Anything anyone is likely to want to move or exchange, any of the content.
>>> Isn't Bluetooth much more likely to connect to other devices, anyway?
>> Much more limited range.
>>> Are you sure you know all of what will be possible in the wireless arena?
>>>> unlike the Microsoft Zune,
>>> This is silliness embodied.
>> Nope.
>>> The Zune can do almost NOTHING with its wireless, and has almost
>>> nothing to compare to. Who wants to send anything for just three days?
>> Irrelevant to whether that feature is useful.
> Is it?
Corse it is.
> That feature specifically builds in the limitation. It has no other uses.
> It prevents the usefulness of such a feature in other ways.
Nope.
>> He didnt say its worse than the Zune, just that the Zune can do THAT.
> He DID say it was worse; he was making a comparison.
> And since it's something the Zune does very horribly, and
> most people think it's an embarassment, it's a weird example.
Irrelevant to whether that feature would be useful in the iPhone.
>>>> Unfriendliness: Apple won't let software developers write their own
>>> I still think it's stupid to complain about not using third-party
>>> tools when you haven't tried the built-in tools.
>> I want to be able to use the best tools available.
>>> This isn't a PDA in that sense; it's supposed to be a finished
>>> product for which you won't _want_ to add anything more.
>> How odd that so many other high end phones can do that.
> Not really;
Yes, really.
> none of the other companies are renowned for software development.
Irrelevant to whether they allow you to run other software than what is provided.
> Most analysts suggest they aren't very skilled
> at making it work better (Palm notwithstanding.)
Irrelevant to whether they allow you to run other software than what is provided.
> Many suggest Apple's lead may focus them on how
> to develop better software and a consistent OS.
I want to be able to use the best tools available.
They're welcome to do that other stuff as well.
> In any case, Apple deserves at least respect now for what they have done;
Nope, it remains to be seen if that philosophy is its major downside or not.
> we should criticize it when we know of a real problem,
That is a real problem. I already use other software on my high end phone.
> not just because we assume there will be a problem.
I know there is a problem because I already use other software
on my high end phone that the iPhone does not provide.
On Jun 23, 2007, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <Xns9957E9AC71748noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>>> which is all the more surprising since it's a touch-screen
>>
>> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen
>> has been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff
>> it touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
>
> The touchscreen can easily be disabled.
>
In news:a-0920FF.08184323062007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net,
none <a@b.com> typed:
> Bob Fry <bobfry@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> Link didn't work.
>
> yes, it did... but try this:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/usingiphone/guidedtour.html
>
> You are still trying to use Windows, so that's probably part of the
> problem.
Sure hope the phone works better than their website describing it ;-)
"Tim Murray" <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2A314F9001CFEAEF0203648@newsgroups.be llsouth.net...
> On Jun 23, 2007, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <Xns9957E9AC71748noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
>> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> which is all the more surprising since it's a touch-screen
>>>
>>> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen
>>> has been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff
>>> it touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
>>
>> The touchscreen can easily be disabled.
>>
>
> Spouts are rarely preceded by fact checking.
In article <Xns9957E9AC71748noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote in news:ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148
> @anonymous.poster:
>
> > which is all the more
> > surprising since it's a touch-screen
>
> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen has
> been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the stuff it
> touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
>
> No WONDER cellphone companies want us to have it....REVENUES!
>
> Larry
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in news:michelle-
> 062079.07301923062007@news.east.cox.net:
>
>> The touchscreen can easily be disabled.
>>
>>
>
> Who will remember to do that before pocketing it....until that first
> bill hits 'em...(c;
The same ones that remember to do that with other phones.
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9957E9AC71748noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>,
> Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote in news:ZDNZ0GV339255.7951273148
>> @anonymous.poster:
>>
>>> which is all the more
>>> surprising since it's a touch-screen
>>
>> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch screen
>> has been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and glasses or the
>> stuff it touched on a holster/pouch...(c;
>>
>> No WONDER cellphone companies want us to have it....REVENUES!
>>
>> Larry
>
> It's got a lock. I don't understand the problem.
> It's got a lock. I don't understand the problem.
>
>
I stand corrected. The video has a graphic that says:
Works like Magic
No Stylus
Far More Accurate
>>>IGNORES UNINTENDED TOUCHES<<<<
Multi-finger gestures
Patented! (though I don't see how that is a feature..(c
We'll see how "Ignores Unintended Touches" plays out after the first bill
comes in...(c;
I've never seen any device that, touching the glasses in my pocket,
"ignores unintended touches", like dialing Bangledesh Parliament at
$2.50/minute.
It'll be interesting to watch.... Sorry I put the hawkers panties in a
wad....well, NOT.
Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in news:99cfi.395$YS.167
@trnddc03:
> Especially we shouldn't criticize the lack of features
> Apple has clearly advertised, such as the ability to
> lock the touch-screen.
>
>
Lock not needed! Apple promises "ignores unintended touches" on the big
video. So, you don't need to lock it as it "ignores unintended touches".
Just tell ATT it "ignores unintended touches" when that $864 cellphone
bill comes in with 4 hours connected to Bangledesh Parliament's hotline
on it. They'll understand, right, and take off the "unintended charge
from the unintended touches".
He's quite a salesman, isn't he? Very well presented.
Tell you what....let's turn 10 over to the posters on this thread that
DON'T own a MAC and are convinced nothing Apple does has flaws for
"product testing".
We'll return the destroyed carcass so Apple's lab can see some more of
the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
"Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.
Larry
--
Of course, I don't own a MAC so can't give an informed opinion....
zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote in news:1182595011.544149.207130
@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
> <rant mode on> The one thing that really bothers me about cell phones
> is that they are being used
> to get users used to the idea that the phone (i'll call it a computer
> for now on scince that's what modern
> cellphones basicly are) isn't really theirs, and that companies and
> only companies have the right to
> decide what you are allowed to run on the computer you bought, down to
> the very programs on it in some
> cases. Anything else is forbidden, and anybody who tries to use the
> computer for anything other that
> what the companies explicity says must be an evil hacker or an outlaw.
> This is like the Trusted Computing
> bullshit, but even more draconian. <rant mode off>
>
>
>
One fine post. Very well said.
Remember when we were all going to be running JAVA programs from some
central (read that metered) server? They've never given up on that
idea....centralized control.
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <dmso73hr1ai3btt7toorbhe8c55uod16a9@4ax.com>,
> Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jun 2007 01:04:59 -0000, avery23455@hotmail.com (Avery) wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech...oscons_print.h
>>> tm
>>>
>>> The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons
>>
>> Why is this shit here?
>
> Where is "here"?
Alt.Cellular. VERIZON
It's not a CDMA phone, so why is it here (in this newsgroup)
The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons 
Linear Mode
