Re: Apple's New Calling: The iPhone

<karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vnv9q2hkqi4v7va2bqmiicc8fhml2jvfl9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:41:31 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:17:18 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <st%oh.42980$9S6.41842@newsfe15.phx>,
> >>> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@SpamBucket.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Apple may have made a serious mistake in not offering the phone on
> >>>> America's Most Reliable Network. It is interesting that they chose
> >>>> GSM rather than the technically superior CDMA.
> >>> Possibly. Or perhaps the Most Reliable Network made a mistake in not
> >>> partnering with Apple.
> >>>
> >>> But Cingular? The lowest-rated cell phone provider in America? That's
> >>> gonna stop me from getting one unless Cingular improves dramatically.
> >>
> >>
> >> First of all, its low rating is in Customer Service, not Network
> >> capability,
> >
> >Not true. Well, yes, Sprint is usually worse, but Cingular's coverage is
> >consistently worse than Verizon's, in every region of the country.
>
> Only if you include the Analog coverage.
>
>
> >
> >Apple wanted a device that they could sell the most units worldwide, so
> >they went with GSM, which meant getting stuck with Cingular. Also,
> >Verizon is pushing it's own music service so didn't want to give up that
> >revenue stream to Apple.
>
> No Apple went with Cingular, cause Cingular gave Apple the freedom to
> design the phone with no strings, and Cingular agreed to provide
> random access voice mail.
>
> >
> >The phone part of the device is almost an afterthought, especially given
> >the lack of 3G capability in the first model. They should sell a version
> >of it with no phone service, but with an ExpressCard slot so users can
> >insert a 3G card from whatever carrier they want.
>
> The phone may well have 3G by the time it comes out in June.
>
> >
> >The reaction to the iPhone by people they interviewed was almost always
> >the same. Very cool, too expensive, and they wouldn't buy one for $500
> >or $600. If the price comes down to $300-400, then Apple will have a winner.
>
> So you're a Verizon shill ?
>
> You apparently haven't been reading a fair cross section of reviews.
>
> http://www.i4u.com/article7607.html
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/te...=todayspaper&o
ref=slogin
>
>
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._iphone_and_li
fe_without_a_keyboard.html
>
>
>
> A better ipod.
> A better "Blackberry" type phone
> A better internet device with True html =browser.', and WiFi
> A better UI.
> A phone without buttons that will make calls when you sit down and
> case presses those buttons.
>
> And in the 5 months between now and when the phone comes out,
> it will likely have more features than you see now. It is after all
> running Apple's OS X.
>
>