Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...

expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
year. this is good news for everyone!

-

Third Party Applications on the iPhone

Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the
iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers¹ hands in February. We
are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community
around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our
users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware
and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best
mobile platform ever for developers.

It will take until February to release an SDK because we¹re trying to do
two diametrically opposed things at once‹provide an advanced and open
platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from
viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim
that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones‹this is
simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones
already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over
the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious
programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most
advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not
allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones
unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known
developer. While this makes such a phone less than ³totally open,² we
believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an
advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively
program the iPhone¹s amazing software platform while at the same time
protecting users from malicious programs.

We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of
great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.

Steve

P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod
touch. [Oct 17, 2007]

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!

Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
the box" and price.

But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
development.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:56:41 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
>
> yep! it was only a matter of time before apple played its heavy hand...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year.

AHAH HA hHHA HHAh AHhah hha hHA hHAHhah ahha ha hHA ah ha...

--
Rick

In article <13hcqqbi987vp68@corp.supernews.com>,
"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.


The reason most people don't use phones with 3rd party apps is because
they didn't come installed in them.

And then they'd need to pay extra for any of the good (i.e. stable)
programs and have to go through a download and installation process.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> -
>

As always, you just don't get it....

Example:
Blackberry = business tool
iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
future)

Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

As usual.

"Joel Koltner" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly.

well, we all know that is going to happen within 24 months, an iPhone
nano for $199 is in the works, a $99 iPhone within 36 months. Apple
ALWAYS starts at the top and works its way down the price scale. So it's
only a question "of when" Apple sweeps out the lower handset makers.

> Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place --

ah... WHAT? I think you must be using Windows. In the Apple world,
people use whatever they want since it's so EASY to try new software.

In the Windows world everyone has been "conditioned" to not try new
software, but nothing like that exists in the Apple space since there
are no penalties for using new software. The iPhone is the PERFECT
device to try new software without any risk. Plus it's FAR easier to
install / remove software on Macs / iPhones...

So I just had to LAUGH at that since that's a pure Windows issue, not an
Apple or iPhone one.

> probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

But Apple will change all that... basically, the cell industry plays
under Apple's rule from this point forward. Everyone wants an iPhone
since it's more feature packed and far easier to use than any other cell
phone... we all know that. So once Apple moves the iPhone down the price
scale, it will remove "most" handset makers out of the market.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

Yes, it's going to be a massive wave of innovation never before seen by
the cell industry. Never has such a large computer firm entered the cell
space, and since the cell industry is very uncompetitive, Apple will
wipe out much of what exists today... so it's going to fun to watch them
fall.

-

Joel Koltner <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

It also applies to the iPod Touch.

For anyone wanting an advanced highly portable computer, but doesn't
need the additional features of the iPhone (or the long term contract)
this makes the iPod Touch even more interesting.

The PDA market isn't as large as the cellphone market, but the iPod
Touch, iPhone or a future slightly larger model with full PDA
functionality and third party application support will be very
competitive with other brands and platforms, and could easily take over
that market.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

This has removed one of my main reasons for not considering an iPod
Touch or an iPhone as a potential replacement for my dying Palm Treo
600. I do use third party software on my Treo and would like to be able
to do so on a replacement device.

I don't want to go to Windows Mobile because it doesn't work well with
the Mac.

Palm has dropped the ball on PalmOS, and a device based on OS X is far
more appealing to me as a Mac user.

I want a device which has full iPod, PDA and cellphone functionality.

If I can't get all three, I'm willing to sacrifice the phone (use a
cheap cellphone instead) but keep portable music and PDA functions on
one device.
--
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> As always, you just don't get it....
>
> Example:
> Blackberry = business tool
> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
> future)

it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?

no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
point in the game.

> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
them.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>


Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an actual clue.

Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus percent
of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

They won't give a shit if 3rd party apps are loaded. The DEVICE is flawed.

You can go on and on and on like you do - you have less than ZERO credibility at this point.

Every post continues to proves it - again and again.

Like this one... Just another fantasy based wish from a deluded, fanatic fanboy.

In news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> As always, you just don't get it....
>>
>> Example:
>> Blackberry = business tool
>> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
>> future)
>
> it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>
>> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.
>
> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
> them.

Which is most likely within 4.5 years:

1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.

2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
users of non-Apple computers.

I would think number 2.

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> > What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
> > is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
> > I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
> > them.
>
> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>
> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>
> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
> users of non-Apple computers.
>
> I would think number 2.

but those aren't the only 2 choices.

3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.

4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.

5) and many more...

most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
>>> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
>>> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
>>> them.
>>
>> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>>
>> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>>
>> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
>> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
>> users of non-Apple computers.
>>
>> I would think number 2.
>
> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>
> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>
> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>
> 5) and many more...
>
> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
was 5 years.
Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?

And tell us why Google would need apple ?
Goggle has more money then apple.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
>> > is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
>> > I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
>> > them.
>>
>> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>>
>> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>>
>> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
>> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
>> users of non-Apple computers.
>>
>> I would think number 2.
>
> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>
> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>
> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>
> 5) and many more...
>
> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:XuzRi.341794$dA7.147612@newsfe16.lga...
> In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
>> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
>>>> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
>>>> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>>>
>>> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>>>
>>> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
>>> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers
>>> to
>>> users of non-Apple computers.
>>>
>>> I would think number 2.
>>
>> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>>
>> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>>
>> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>>
>> 5) and many more...
>>
>> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.
> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
down. Then they got AT&T

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.

Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.

and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

-

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
> >
> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
> >
> > 5) and many more...
> >
> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.

80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
iPhone.

> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.

Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
iPhone contract, etc.

> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?

currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.

so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
make the cut.

we'll see.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.

you seem not to understand the point of a board of directors.

> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

yup, but not much less in relatively liquid assets (cash & cash equivalents,
short term investments, and net receivables). and google has more long term
investments. and a lot less liabilities. i.e. if google *wanted* a higher
cash position, they'd have it.

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> >> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
> >
> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
> > How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> > was 5 years.
> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
> >
> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
> down. Then they got AT&T

yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
blunders of the last 50 years or so.

verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/v...e-iphone-deal/

i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules, they
don't... so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a chance
later on.

You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
iphone and apple.

Your starting to sound like John Navas.


"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> >> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>> >
>> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> > WiFi.
>> > How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought
>> > it
>> > was 5 years.
>> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>> >
>> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
>> down. Then they got AT&T
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.
>
> verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/v...e-iphone-deal/
>
> i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules, they
> don't... so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a chance
> later on.

Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?

Your so full of shit.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>> >
>> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>> >
>> > 5) and many more...
>> >
>> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>>
>> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
> get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
> plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
> not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
> iPhone.
>
>> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought
>> it
>> was 5 years.
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
> course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
> for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
> iPhone contract, etc.
>
>> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
>
> so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
> make the cut.
>
> we'll see.

Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

Then why is it said Google is getting into the cell phone market. By your
thinking "Steve" would say no to Google" Fact is I don't think Google gives
a crap what apple thinks.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

In news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

Actually, since Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's Board, Apple does what Google
says! lol

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
> iphone and apple.

actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.

Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>
> Your so full of shit.

learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
information from me. it's "their", not "there".

Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down
>> the
>> iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.

and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
*wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...

<snip>

In news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down
>> the iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.


VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
negotiations.

Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
Apple's advantage.

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.

no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!

yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
years.

currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B

-

In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
> >
> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >
>
>
> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> actual clue.
>
> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
seem to have gotten anywhere.)

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <QDzRi.5773$y21.2069@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> ,
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.

I don't know if Google *needs* Apple, and I have no idea how closely the
two companies will end up working together... but Apple sure has a lot
more experience than Google building operating systems and hardware
platforms. The two companies would in many respects be a natural fit for
each other.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007