Verizon Wireless thumbs its nose at the iPhone

In article <B6Thi.8172$Bx2.3187@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
"balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don't underestimate Apple.
>
> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY
> HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

Oh really? Having something like 70% of the portable music player
market isn't significant? Being the third largest music retailer
(behind Best Buy and Walmart) is not a significant part of that market?



--
--Tim Smith

In article <mbWhi.27723$YL5.17808@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5eqo3eF39vuakU1@mid.individual.net...
> > ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ed <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:5ep3ilF39ckv3U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> ed <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
> >>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
> >>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally* disables
> >>>>>>> bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be able to take
> >>>>>>> advantage of bitpim...
> >>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively fucked with such an
> >>>>>> expensive phone.
> >>>
> >>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
> >>>>> wifi to do that instead.
> >
> >>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
> >
> >>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
> >
> >> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
> >> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
> >
> > Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
> > the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
> >
> > Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>
> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync contacts,
> calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer ringtones and images
> to/from your computer over cable (which you can use to sync), why would you
> be able to transfer them over wif?

Apple may want to tie the sync feature to .Mac as they do with their
computers?
Anyway, i read there would be plenty of updates for the iphone in the
next few months prior to the release of leopard so a number of features
common to todays devices but for whatever reason were omitted from the
iphone will most likely be addressed between now and then.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eqponF39mfbrU1@mid.individual.net...
> ed <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5eqo3eF39vuakU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ed <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5ep3ilF39ckv3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ed <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally*
>>>>>>>>> disables bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be
>>>>>>>>> able to take advantage of bitpim...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively fucked with such
>>>>>>>> an expensive phone.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use the
>>>>>>> wifi to do that instead.
>>>
>>>>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
>>>
>>>>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
>>>
>>>> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
>>>> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
>>>
>>> Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
>>> the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
>>>
>>> Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>>
>> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync
>> contacts, calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer
>> ringtones and images to/from your computer over cable (which you can
>> use to sync), why would you be able to transfer them over wif?
>
> Because synching is nothing like browsing using wifi.
>
> Every wifi capable laptop can move files over the wifi and I bet the
> iphone can too.

that's a useless comparison, eh? every laptop w/ a usb cable can move files
over the cable too, but the iphone can't...

ed <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5eqponF39mfbrU1@mid.individual.net...
>> ed <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5eqo3eF39vuakU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 1, 2:33 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> ed <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5ep3ilF39ckv3U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ed <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> bitpim works over bluetooth too- it uses the serial protocol
>>>>>>>>>> that's usually still available, even if file transfer is
>>>>>>>>>> disabled. from the articles about how iphone *totally*
>>>>>>>>>> disables bluetooth other than for earpieces, it may not be
>>>>>>>>>> able to take advantage of bitpim...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that would be even more comprehensively fucked with such
>>>>>>>>> an expensive phone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tho maybe its not so bad with the iphone because you can use
>>>>>>>> the wifi to do that instead.
>>>>
>>>>>>> i'm pretty sure i read you can't do that either-
>>>>
>>>>>> Dont believe that, that would make the web browser useless.
>>>>
>>>>> i'm not sure how that follows- how would not being able to
>>>>> transfer files to/from your pc make the web browser useless?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, didnt say that very clearly. I just dont believe
>>>> the wifi is crippled so you cant browse your files tho.
>>>>
>>>> Why would they bother, it would cripple the wifi too much.
>>>
>>> well, reading pogue's review you definately can *not* even sync
>>> contacts, calendars, etc with wifi... and if you can't transfer
>>> ringtones and images to/from your computer over cable (which you can
>>> use to sync), why would you be able to transfer them over wif?
>>
>> Because synching is nothing like browsing using wifi.
>>
>> Every wifi capable laptop can move files over the wifi and I bet the
>> iphone can too.

> that's a useless comparison, eh?

Nope.

> every laptop w/ a usb cable can move files over the cable too, but the iphone can't...

In article <gaThi.8220$Bx2.5642@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
<"balsofsteele@gmail.com"> wrote:

> Selling a lot of units doesn't constitute success. Success is having
> those people buy the second unit.

Britney Spears has sold a lot of records - that doesn't mean she knows
how to sing.

At 01 Jul 2007 16:40:43 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> And to think, Microsoft is on Version 6 of Windows for cell phone
> devices.

Um, no. What we now call Windows Mobile began it's life as a PDA OS,
like Palm OS did. Integrated phone support didn't show up until 2002 in
what counting backwards would've been "Windows Mobile 3," but was then
called "Pocket PC Phone Edition."

For the record, however, all versions of Windows Mobile even back to 1.0
offered cut-n-paste as a feature... ;-)

Oh, yes, and all Windows Mobile phones' Media Players and PIM functions
operated with or without a SIM, activated or not.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 01 Jul 2007 15:59:23 -0700 Tim Smith wrote:

> Being the third largest music retailer
> (behind Best Buy and Walmart) is not a significant part of that market?

Maybe, maybe not. Being the 3rd largest soft-drink manufacturer behind
Coke and Pepsi, for example, might not give you a significant market share.


The 3rd largest car manufacturer in the US had to be bailed out by the US
government in my lifetime to save it from going out of business.

Apple won't even talk about how iTunes does, so I'm not sure how anyone
knows where they rank!


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Rod Speed wrote:
> balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> M-M wrote:
>>>>> In article <zmMhi.7854$vq6.6102@fe49.usenetserver.com>,
>>>>> "balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone
>>>>>> that I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is
>>>>>> mostly WORTHLESS.
>>>>> VZW won't allow you to add your own ringtones or transfer photos by
>>>>> BT and that's irritating. It's a pain to have to use the card.
>>>> SURE THEY DO, use bitpim if you insist on doing it that way. If you
>>>> still want to use bluetooth you totally missed the whole fucking
>>>> point of my post.
>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when
>>>>>> it comes to data services.
>>>>> I agree with you there. That's why I'm staying.
>>>> Some people want a "personal communications device", some people
>>>> only need bling-bling.
>>>>
>>>>>> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>>>>>> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do.
>>>>> The iPhone is WAY cooler and that's the name of the game and Apple
>>>>> knows that.
>>>> "cooler" for what? They did a lot of marketing, paid a lot of
>>>> people to claim how goddamn cool it was on the internet, etc.
>>>>
>>>> The fucking thing is bigger than a Microtac. If big phones are the
>>>> new kewl thing, I guess I'll pull a brick out and start using it (at
>>>> least until Febuary...)
>>>>
>>>>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't
>>>>>> one of them, obviously. They're not in a position to be
>>>>>> competitive with folks like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>>>>> Don't underestimate Apple.
>>>> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
>>>> ACTUALLY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART
>>>> OF.
>>> That is just plain wrong with the ipod.
>
>> Actually, those dinky chinky flash-based mp3 players sold A LOT MORE worldwide than all the apple
>> players put together.
>
> Apple still had A SIGNIFICANT PORTION of that particular market.
>
> The only market they did manage that with.

Ok, I'll retract my statement. They got a lot more than they should
have, thats for damned well sure.

>> Most of the folks I saw carrying ipods a few years ago now carry somebody else's mp3 player or
>> already upgraded to a media-playing cellphone and an SD card.
>
> You didnt say the majority, just A SIGNIFICANT PORTION.
>
> The portion that Apple did achieve is certainly SIGNIFICANT.

For a time, sure. They're starting to lose out to more competitive
devices from better equipped manufacturers. They make/made a LOT more
money selling media than they did the devices, though.

>> I personally think they're attempting to peddle a 3 year old phone inside of a LCD picture frame.
>
> More fool you.

Hmm... Wheres the HSPDA or UMTS? Its a cheezy old GSM phone with a big
screen and some mostly worthless software. The lack of 3rd party
software makes it equally worthless as a standard Verizon BREW phone.

>> Not very cool at all.
>
> It is a pretty decent design, with some real lacks like
> not being able to run 3rd party apps, no removable
> battery, no SD card etc and the wrong cellphone network.

Well, I still don't like the design, at all. Its just too damned big
for a phone, and it fails as a complete PDA solution.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <gaThi.8220$Bx2.5642@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
> "balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:38:05 -0500, "balsofsteele@gmail.com"
>>> <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't one of
>>>> them, obviously. They're not in a position to be competitive with folks
>>>> like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>>>
>>> NICE TRY
>> Selling a lot of units doesn't constitute success. Success is having
>> those people buy the second unit.
>>
> Why stop there? WHy not the 25th? 100th?

Selling the second one might be tough for Apple. If the first iPhones
are anything like the first iPods, Cingular is going to have some PISSED
OFF CUSTOMERS... Would you sign a 2 year contract on the daily
operation of a 1st generation iPod, knowing the reliability of those
devices today? Not I!

M-M wrote:
> In article <B6Thi.8172$Bx2.3187@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
> "balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Don't underestimate Apple.
>> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY
>> HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.
>
> How about the stock market?

Apple's stock has very damned little to do with anything, and compared
to many other companies they're very small potatoes.

Personally I'd be much more interested if Cisco/Linksys was selling a
cellphone. Apple? Plz.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <gaThi.8220$Bx2.5642@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
> <"balsofsteele@gmail.com"> wrote:
>
>> Selling a lot of units doesn't constitute success. Success is having
>> those people buy the second unit.
>
> Britney Spears has sold a lot of records - that doesn't mean she knows
> how to sing.

Yep. Luckily for Ms. Spears theres always a steady flow of new 12 year
old girls (and 50 year old pervy guys) to buy her product.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 01 Jul 2007 16:40:43 +0000 karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> Oh, yes, and all Windows Mobile phones' Media Players and PIM functions
> operated with or without a SIM, activated or not.

Yep. The current generation of wifi-equipped WM5/6 (and PalmOS) phones
will make *awesome* VoIP-over-WiFi phones when they run out of contract.

Can't wait to start picking them up cheap off ebay.

Michael Paris wrote:
>
> ">
>> Whats crippled? My phones makes and receives calls just fine and in a
>> lot more places than at&t.\
>
> More or less about the same as far as coverge, each has their better
> areas, I read people bitch about ATT's coverage, honestly never had a
> problem, When I had VZW the same held true.

Pft. CDMA has a clear cut 10+ dB advantage on any GSM system and
doesn't fall flat on its ass when theres some multipath. Thats tough to
argue with.

At 01 Jul 2007 19:18:50 -0500 balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
> They make/made a LOT more money selling media than they did the
> devices, though.

Actually quite the opposite- by selling the downloads at 99-cents with
virtually no margin, iTunes is essentially a break-even operation
designed to support the sales of VERY profitable hardware.

As you correctly point out, other manufacturers create superior spec'd
hardware at lower retail prices, yet iTunes helps insure that people
upgrade their old iPod with newer iPods rather than switch brands and
devalue their investment in iTunes downloads.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <zmMhi.7854$vq6.6102@fe49.usenetserver.com>,
"balsofsteele@gmail.com" <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> > In article <6n7hi.16221$Fo1.3467@bignews7.bellsouth.net>, Dr zara
> > <jackcal@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have used ATT and Verizon for at least twenty years, concurrently. Let
> >> me
> >> assure you that ATT third rate. Verizon blows it away on a daily basis.
> >> FYI: The "new" ATT is not anything like the "old" ATT.
> >
> > More accurately phrased: Verizon blows.
> > But, if you like crippled hardware so they can do open wallet surgery
> > at every turn...then go for it.
>
> Stop, back the truck up...
>
> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone that
> I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which is mostly
> WORTHLESS.
>
> It has multiple problems:
>
> #1 - its really slow! Its even painfully slow on BT 2.0 if you're
> moving more than a handful of photos at a time, forget MP3s or movies.
> Its worse with wifi or any other 2.4 ghz interference present (I've
> actually caused my BT adapter to be completely unable to work by running
> netstumbler - the constant flow of AP queries sent by NS (on every wifi
> channel) managed to completely hose the BT connection)
>
> #2 - its not reliable, and the failure modes vary depending on
> manufacturer/model/situation/etc. Ever tried to recover lost clusters
> in the internal flash on a phone that you have no direct file system
> access on? Its not much fun.
>
> #3 - its a support nightmare. Verizon doesn't want to support your
> peecee (or macintrash) unless you cough up the big bucks for a data
> account. Considering how stupid-and-proud-of-it most people are, I
> can't blame them. Theres a reason PDA data accounts are cheaper -
> theres significantly less support hassles compared to pc-card/tethered
> customers.
>
> If you want easy access to add/modify/remove files, you should get a
> phone that supports a removable memory card. Its a lot more convenient
> than any other option and several hundred times faster than anything
> you're going to push over bluetooth. Buying good, fast flash can
> improve the phone's responsiveness (especially when saving images) by
> comparison to the internal flash, and you reduce the chance of 'wearing
> out' the internal flash (most flash is only rated for between 100k to 1M
> writes). The other nice thing about this is applications like WMP and
> WinAmp will "pick up" the flash device (once its been initialized by
> inserted in the cellphone at least once while its turned on) as a
> multimedia device and handle the files for you. You can also copy files
> 'the old fashioned way' (there are separate folders on the flash for the
> different types of media)
>
> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially when it
> comes to data services. Some carriers (at least they did a few years
> back) charge extra for dial-out modem (14.4k) access, and nobody else I
> can find offers anything similar to the MOU 1xRTT/EVDO. That alone
> saves me at least $35/mo compared to any other carrier and I never burn
> up enough of my minutes (~200 minutes and ~40MB per month of 1x usage)
> to care.
>
> The minutes are the same price as the other area carriers, the text/pics
> are about the same price, and I don't have to pay out the ass for small
> quantities of data usage... Works out perfect for me.
>
> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do. The VX9800 has a
> faster cellular radio and can stream things off the cell network with
> ease. tethered data speeds are limited by the bt 1.2 interface and my
> lack of a compatible USB data cable. Theres really only two reasons I'd
> want a wifi-capable phone: The ability for the phone to operate as a
> wifi AP and route between the cellular interface and wifi - this won't
> happen on the iphone due to the slow EDGE cellular radio. The second
> feature would be for it to be a VoIP-over-WiFi client, which doesn't
> exist (yet), but does for almost every other modern smartphone out there.
>
> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't one of
> them, obviously. They're not in a position to be competitive with folks
> like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.
>
> Oh well, nothing like good ol' Usenet. Full of loudmouth jackasses and
> the corporate ringers that lead them around...

Actually, I have a Verizon Moto V3c. I generally like Verizon, and will
probably keep it when I upgrade my phone in a year or so. One big gripe
I have is that hey have handicapped the phone by disabling OBEX (I think
that is the term), which would allow me to download pictures from the
phone to my computer. Otherwise, I am pretty happy with them, as they
have good coverage, both here in Hawaii and on the Mainland.

--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

In article <010720071627505284%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <gaThi.8220$Bx2.5642@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
> <"balsofsteele@gmail.com"> wrote:
>
> > Selling a lot of units doesn't constitute success. Success is having
> > those people buy the second unit.
>
> Britney Spears has sold a lot of records - that doesn't mean she knows
> how to sing.

As long as money keeps flowing into her bank account, I suspect it makes
no difference how bad you think Britney Spears' singing ability is.

In article <B6Thi.8172$Bx2.3187@fe05.usenetserver.com>,
balsofsteele@gmail.com <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why the fuck not? THEY [Apple] HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY
>HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

Well, unless you count personal computers, PDAs, and portable digital music
players. Keep on trollin', though.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

> >Why the fuck not? THEY [Apple] HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
> >ACTUALLY
> >HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.
>
> Well, unless you count personal computers, PDAs, and portable digital music
> players. Keep on trollin', though.

That's like saying the United State or Great Britain never had
significant marketshare of population, but oddly enough they still
control most of the world.

Apple is the LEADER in most all high tech markets, sure their
marketshare is low, but you need to learn they OWN the TOP part of the
markets they control, (PC, PDA, Music, Video, Cell Phones, etc) everyone
else is a "Apple Wannabe".

In article <ZvXhi.8977$Ui6.5489@fe02.usenetserver.com>,
balsofsteele@gmail.com <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Selling the second one might be tough for Apple.

Trivial. They were limiting sales to two per customer, and many
customers bought two. But keep on trollin'
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote
>>>>> M-M wrote:
>>>>>> <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> The only BT profile that Verizon is missing off any modern phone
>>>>>>> that I've seen is the "Multimedia File Sharing" profile, which
>>>>>>> is mostly WORTHLESS.

>>>>>> VZW won't allow you to add your own ringtones or transfer photos
>>>>>> by BT and that's irritating. It's a pain to have to use the card.

>>>>> SURE THEY DO, use bitpim if you insist on doing it that way. If
>>>>> you still want to use bluetooth you totally missed the whole
>>>>> fucking point of my post.

>>>>>>> Personally I consider Verizon pretty damned open, especially
>>>>>>> when it comes to data services.

>>>>>> I agree with you there. That's why I'm staying.

>>>>> Some people want a "personal communications device", some people only need bling-bling.

>>>>>>> I really haven't seen anything the iPhone does that the
>>>>>>> already-been-off-the-market-6-months VX9800 can't do.

>>>>>> The iPhone is WAY cooler and that's the name of the game and
>>>>>> Apple knows that.

>>>>> "cooler" for what? They did a lot of marketing, paid a lot of
>>>>> people to claim how goddamn cool it was on the internet, etc.

>>>>> The fucking thing is bigger than a Microtac. If big phones are
>>>>> the new kewl thing, I guess I'll pull a brick out and start using
>>>>> it (at least until Febuary...)

>>>>>>> Apple needs to stick to markets they understand. Cellular isn't
>>>>>>> one of them, obviously. They're not in a position to be
>>>>>>> competitive with folks like Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc.

>>>>>> Don't underestimate Apple.

>>>>> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT
>>>>> PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.

>>>> That is just plain wrong with the ipod.

>>> Actually, those dinky chinky flash-based mp3 players sold A LOT
>>> MORE worldwide than all the apple players put together.

>> Apple still had A SIGNIFICANT PORTION of that particular market.

>> The only market they did manage that with.

> Ok, I'll retract my statement. They got a lot more than they should have, thats for damned well
> sure.

Dunno, its got a rather better user interface than most of the
alternatives, with some real downsides too, like not being able
to treat the device as a drive too, and no user replaceable battery.

>>> Most of the folks I saw carrying ipods a few years ago now carry somebody else's mp3 player or
>>> already upgraded to a media-playing cellphone and an SD card.

>> You didnt say the majority, just A SIGNIFICANT PORTION.

>> The portion that Apple did achieve is certainly SIGNIFICANT.

> For a time, sure. They're starting to lose out to more competitive devices from better equipped
> manufacturers.

Maybe. I cant think of too many that are such elegant
designs tho except where the media player is integrated in
the phone, something Apple is VERY late to market with.

> They make/made a LOT more money selling media than they did the devices, though.

Sure, but that is also another area where they
got a very significant portion of the market too.

>>> I personally think they're attempting to peddle a 3 year old phone inside of a LCD picture
>>> frame.

>> More fool you.

> Hmm... Wheres the HSPDA or UMTS? Its a cheezy old GSM phone

Yes, it should certainly be 3G.

> with a big screen and some mostly worthless software.

A quite elegant user interface tho.

> The lack of 3rd party software makes it equally worthless as a standard Verizon BREW phone.

Yeah, bit downside for me too, but I recognise that the bulk of the market
doesnt add any of their own stuff to their phone or even to their laptop.

>>> Not very cool at all.

>> It is a pretty decent design, with some real lacks like
>> not being able to run 3rd party apps, no removable
>> battery, no SD card etc and the wrong cellphone network.

> Well, I still don't like the design, at all. Its just too damned big for a phone,

Maybe, but the common phones have screen too small for browsing etc.

> and it fails as a complete PDA solution.

Yes, but it does do some things quite well, particularly being a very
decent platform for the sort of browsing you are likely to when out and
about without the downside of the inconvenience of a laptop/notebook.

I also dont like the lack of app accessible GPS either.

Not real keen on their approach to the keyboard either, you cant
see enough of the email you are replying to to be much use either.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 01 Jul 2007 19:18:50 -0500 balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
>> They make/made a LOT more money selling media than they did the
>> devices, though.
>
> Actually quite the opposite- by selling the downloads at 99-cents with
> virtually no margin, iTunes is essentially a break-even operation
> designed to support the sales of VERY profitable hardware.
>
> As you correctly point out, other manufacturers create superior spec'd
> hardware at lower retail prices, yet iTunes helps insure that people
> upgrade their old iPod with newer iPods rather than switch brands and
> devalue their investment in iTunes downloads.

True, they should have apps that move the itunes downloads to those devices.
Technically very easy to do, you can do that manually if you know what you are doing.

In news:im-704775.20405401072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net,
Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> typed:
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>> Why the fuck not? THEY [Apple] HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER
>>> ACTUALLY
>>> HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.
>>
>> Well, unless you count personal computers, PDAs, and portable digital
>> music players. Keep on trollin', though.
>
> That's like saying the United State or Great Britain never had
> significant marketshare of population, but oddly enough they still
> control most of the world.
>
> Apple is the LEADER in most all high tech markets, sure their
> marketshare is low, but you need to learn they OWN the TOP part of the
> markets they control, (PC, PDA, Music, Video, Cell Phones, etc) everyone
> else is a "Apple Wannabe".

The Apple Newton and the Lisa computer really took over when they were
introduced ;-)

In article <468844f4$0$10194$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 01 Jul 2007 19:18:50 -0500 balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
> > They make/made a LOT more money selling media than they did the
> > devices, though.
>
> Actually quite the opposite- by selling the downloads at 99-cents with
> virtually no margin, iTunes is essentially a break-even operation
> designed to support the sales of VERY profitable hardware.
>

According to teh National Association of Record Industry
Professionals' (NARIP) figures, Apple keeps 34 cents of the 99 cents.
Since all they really have as overhead is servers and cheap storage
capacity, I would think they get to keep most of that.

On Jul 1, 2007, balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote:
> Why the fuck not? THEY HAVE NEVER AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY EVER ACTUALLY
> HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ANY MARKET THEY ARE A PART OF.
>

They have always had 100% market share of those that own Apple computers.

At 02 Jul 2007 04:06:24 +0000 Kurt Ullman wrote:

> According to teh National Association of Record Industry
> Professionals' (NARIP) figures, Apple keeps 34 cents of the 99 cents.
> Since all they really have as overhead is servers and cheap storage
> capacity, I would think they get to keep most of that.


All the articles in the trades I've read call the iTunes store a dud
profit wise. Apple only claimed it was profitable in one quarterly report,
IIRC, and has said little about it since.

It's possible it makes a pile of money and Apple says mum on the subject,
but that seems unlikely- most companies like bragging about success.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 02 Jul 2007 04:06:24 +0000 Kurt Ullman wrote:

> According to teh National Association of Record Industry
> Professionals' (NARIP) figures, Apple keeps 34 cents of the 99 cents.
> Since all they really have as overhead is servers and cheap storage
> capacity, I would think they get to keep most of that.


All the articles in the trades I've read call the iTunes store a dud
profit wise. Apple only claimed it was profitable in one quarterly report,
IIRC, and has said little about it since.

It's possible it makes a pile of money and Apple says mum on the subject,
but that seems unlikely- most companies like bragging about success.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

> > That's like saying the United State or Great Britain never had
> > significant marketshare of population, but oddly enough they still
> > control most of the world.
> >
> > Apple is the LEADER in most all high tech markets, sure their
> > marketshare is low, but you need to learn they OWN the TOP part of the
> > markets they control, (PC, PDA, Music, Video, Cell Phones, etc) everyone
> > else is a "Apple Wannabe".
>
> The Apple Newton and the Lisa computer really took over when they were
> introduced ;-)

the Lisa set the stage for the entire GUI we all use today, the Mac
became popular, and windows became the "cheap chinese version of the
mac", the Newton set the stage for the entire PDA market and is now
morphed into the iPhone.

so even apple's early failures became major world wide successes, it
just took a year and a half in the case of the Lisa, and 15 years for
the Newton.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-07-02, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> They have always had 100% market share of those that own Apple computers.

For a short time, they were allowing other companies to build clones.

But they stopped doing that pretty quickly, which IMHO was foolish.

Steve Sobol:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
> On 2007-07-02, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> They have always had 100% market share of those that own Apple computers.
>
> For a short time, they were allowing other companies to build clones.
>
> But they stopped doing that pretty quickly, which IMHO was foolish.

And you would base that opinion on Apple's current financial state versus
that state at the time they stopped licensing clone builders? ;-)
--
Steve = : ^ )

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <ZvXhi.8977$Ui6.5489@fe02.usenetserver.com>,
> balsofsteele@gmail.com <balsofsteele@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Selling the second one might be tough for Apple.
>
> Trivial. They were limiting sales to two per customer, and many
> customers bought two. But keep on trollin'

A significant percentage of people returned their iPhones yesterday due
to activation troubles.

Considering the damned things are locked to special SIMs (supposedly),
it sure seems like AT&T could have pre-activated them and assigned
accounts as the account data was presented. Oh well, customer
satisfaction is always number... shit this list is long I can't find it!

Unluckily this is the case with all cell carriers...

"We no longer allow the ability to roam on Sprint PCS systems with your
account" - Verizon, not *that* long ago.