 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / December 2007Did Apple just trump AT&T? It appears so...
This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network like a hot potato. AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so they need to play nice or end up like IBM. --- Important Parts Here: What I believe is troubling the relationship between AT&T and Apple is the upcoming auction for 700-MHz wireless spectrum and AT&T's discovery that -- as I have predicted for weeks -- Apple will be joining Google in bidding. AT&T thought its five-year "exclusive" iPhone agreement with Apple would have precluded such a bid, but that just shows how poorly Randall Stephenson understood Steve Jobs. Steve always hurts his friends to see how much they really love him, so AT&T probably should have expected this kind of corporate body blow. To his credit, Stephenson took the dispute to the streets this way, showing he isn't intimidated by Jobs. It was a bold and rare response for big business and was definitely unexpected by Cupertino, which won't underestimate AT&T again. I'm not privy to any inside details here, but there are two ways I can see Jobs rationalizing his auction position and they aren't necessarily exclusive. He could claim to intend the 700-MHz auction participation as a pure investment, just a good use for the $30+ billion Apple has squirreled away. Nah. Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network for which it has no voice ambitions. Maybe all MacBooks will soon get 700-MHz access cards. This excuse rings truer, but of course it would still be a scam on Steve's part. It would not surprise me at all if this were the case and when the 700-MHz network is finally up and running Jobs claims astonishment that the most popular data application is Voice over IP, a direct competitor to AT&T Wireless. This may be part of the reason why Apple has been so slow approving third-party iPhone applications. Wouldn't your first application be a VoIP client? --- Full Article Here: http://snipurl.com/1uh83 - In article <linuxlovesosx-432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>, > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... > > Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY > iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network > like a hot potato. Um... and using what network instead? The iPhone couldn't use some hypothetical 700 MHz network without a hardware upgrade, unless Apple has been doing something very sneaky (and implausible). It would be interesting to see Apple get this spectrum, but I wouldn't consider it too likely. It would be just as interesting to see Google get this spectrum, and that might even have a lot of the same benefits for Apple. That's more likely, but far from a forgone conclusion. [snip]  Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 > > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > > is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hypothetical 700 MHz network without a hardware upgrade, unless Apple > has been doing something very sneaky (and implausible). 802.11 of course, that offers plenty of speed and coupling it with free phone calls to any other iPhone would be about the 6th Killer App in the history of the industry, 4th one directly relating to Apple/SJ hardware. (visicalc, pagemaker, www, then iChatIP) > It would be interesting to see Apple get this spectrum, but I wouldn't > consider it too likely. It would be just as interesting to see Google > get this spectrum, and that might even have a lot of the same benefits > for Apple. That's more likely, but far from a forgone conclusion. yes, I kinda doubt Apple will purchase the spectrum outright, but a tandem Google deal makes sense now that Google has officially said they aren't going to build a phone. The whole spectrum is still 400 days away from being usable, so on the "way out there" side of things, Apple could offer a $49 iChatIP box that connects up to literally billions of old Analog TV's and makes them all two way video walkie talkies. (smirk) apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so it will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google. - In article <linuxlovesosx-7C18BB.13404001122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > > > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > > > is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > history of the industry, 4th one directly relating to Apple/SJ hardware. > (visicalc, pagemaker, www, then iChatIP) It would be nice to have VoIP for when there's WiFi around, but the idea of using WiFi in place of the cellular network is, at present, nuts. Even in areas with nearly blanket WiFi coverage, there's no mechanism to do transparent handoffs between access points using commodity hardware. I'd rather not have to stand in one place for the duration of a call. [snip] Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 In article <linuxlovesosx-7C18BB.13404001122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > yes, I kinda doubt Apple will purchase the spectrum outright, but a > tandem Google deal makes sense now that Google has officially said they > aren't going to build a phone. And that they are providing the software to let other people do so--software that doesn't have anything to do with iPhone. Signaturehttp://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/ Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic. Published by Baen, in bookstores now In article <linuxlovesosx-7C18BB.13404001122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, Well, let's see. I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs did drugs when he was younger, so you can just as easily say that Apple has a very long history of drug abuse with its top officers. I'm also sure that Jobs takes a sh.t every day, so you can also say that Apple has a long history of being involved with waste management. Oxturd keeps talking about the days when a couple of college students/droputs sold some phone phreaking boxes to make extra money, and somehow in his mind that makes Apple an expert in telecommunications. Of course, Oxturd also thinks that Adele Goldberg served "milk and cookies" when Apple visited PARC, so... >> > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even >> > AT&T is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 802.11 of course, 802.11x is not a network, dimwit. > that offers plenty of speed And yet connection speed can be a quarter of 3G speeds. > and coupling it with > free phone calls to any other iPhone would be about the 6th Killer App > in the history of the industry, 4th one directly relating to Apple/SJ > hardware. (visicalc, pagemaker, www, then iChatIP) Sorry- I get free phone calls to other cells now. Apple did not invent that. > >> It would be interesting to see Apple get this spectrum, but I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tandem Google deal makes sense now that Google has officially said > they aren't going to build a phone. Not going to happen, clueless twit. > The whole spectrum is still 400 days away from being usable, so on the > "way out there" side of things, Apple could offer a $49 iChatIP box > that connects up to literally billions of old Analog TV's and makes > them all two way video walkie talkies. (smirk) Damn- you are a complete idiot. Why would you propose such an open violation of the spectrum guidelines? > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, short history, actually. > so it > will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google. They won't. > The whole spectrum is still 400 days away from being usable, so on the > "way out there" side of things You are confused. The spectrum is 400 days (?) from being AWARDED. Next comes type certification of equipment. Then the manufacturing of equipment (mainly chipsets). Then the network build out. Or are you dreaming that in 400 days everything will magically start working? > The spectrum is 400 days (?) from being AWARDED. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or are you dreaming that in 400 days everything will magically start > working? it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they roll. Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- DA81AC.22385901122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net: >> The spectrum is 400 days (?) from being AWARDED. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they > roll. That would mean that they are building the network now. Funny- I don't see any expenses for that in their financial reports. So tell me- how are they building the netwrok today to be ready for day one? > Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- > DA81AC.22385901122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > any expenses for that in their financial reports. So tell me- how are they > building the netwrok today to be ready for day one? It's pretty implausible if Apple wants to set up something like a conventional cellular network, yeah. There are other possibilities... some sort of mesh network architecture maybe. Doesn't seem very likely, though. Personally, I doubt Apple will actually bid. If Google wins and builds a "neutral" network, I won't be too surprised if Apple eventually supports it, though. Signature"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?" - George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006 > > it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they > > roll. > > That would mean that they are building the network now. Funny- I don't see > any expenses for that in their financial reports. So tell me- how are they > building the netwrok today to be ready for day one? They don't have to build it, silly, they'll just use the existing TV station towers currently broadcasting on those frequencies, remember? Oxy's already explained all that... Remember the "instant network?" Try to keep up, Cozmic... ;-) > They don't have to build it, silly, they'll just use the existing TV > station towers currently broadcasting on those frequencies, remember? > Oxy's already explained all that... Remember the "instant network?" I was about to say I didn't understand why he brought up the TV towers, but then I remembered his obvious lack of understanding many topics - RF propagation for one. There is no advantage of placing an access point more than one hundred feet above the average terrain...even if the tower space if free. You truly ARE a f.cking idiot!!! Do even a slight bit of homework before you make your completely stupid statements. It amazes me that you can be so clueless.... >> The spectrum is 400 days (?) from being AWARDED. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they > roll. In article <linuxlovesosx-DA81AC.22385901122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > > The spectrum is 400 days (?) from being AWARDED. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it apple wins, they'll have product on day one. that's just how they > roll. So, that's your prediction? For everyone to see? What waffling will you use when that doesn't happen? What excuse will you have about how you "really didn't mean THAT" when that doesn't happen? > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so it > will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google. Um, no. Jobs and Woz had a short period of time where they made money being thieves building blue boxes to steal long distance service. You've got your head so far up your a.s you can practically see daylight again. > > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so it > > will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You've got your head so far up your a.s you can practically see daylight > again. but apple continued to develop telephony ideas throughout its history. knowledge navigator was a wireless phone concept, the shipping product GeoPort was a telephony device. Apple developed several software only phones, all long before the iPhone became so successful. the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting here, so this knowledge confuses many people, mainly the so called "cell experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong interest in wireless communications. they simply have no idea... i do... http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1377/847455044_3bffa46ca8.jpg http://snipurl.com/1uim8 - I am putting my money on Apple and Google, the senior management at AT & T is too old and fat to make things happen and deal with the complexities of today's technology. AT & T is at best a fourth rate company with no vision of the future. Tom Welch > I am putting my money on Apple and Google, the > senior management at AT & T is too old and > fat to make things happen and deal with the > complexities of today's technology. Yet they're one of the largest broadbands ISPs- you remember- the guys who are supplyingall that "fre wifi" tht make cellphones "obsolete?" > AT & T is at best a fourth rate company with no vision > of the future. Just curious- how do decide which sock puppets are allowed to capitalize, and which only post in lower case, Oxy? >> > apple has a very long history with phones and phone phreaking, so >> > it will be interesting IF they bid, or tandem bid with Google. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > GeoPort was a telephony device. Apple developed several software only > phones, all long before the iPhone became so successful. So they have no experience with hardware phones, only second rate software solutions. Ehanks for clarifying. > the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting > here, Not true. > so this knowledge confuses many people, No- your stupidity confuses many people. > mainly the so called > "cell experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong > interest in wireless communications. We don't understand it because it doesn't exist. > they simply have no idea... i do... You barely understand how to power your computer on. > >> You've got your head so far up your a.s you can practically see > >> daylight again. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So they have no experience with hardware phones, only second rate software > solutions. Ehanks for clarifying. ah, three hardware phones from apple... http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1377/847455044_3bffa46ca8.jpg http://snipurl.com/1uim8 http://www.memoirevive.ch/newsservice/data/upimages/GeoPortvsAppleModem.J PG apple as always built the best... so I guess the question is... why do you hate quality so much? > > the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting > > here, > > Not true. name someone better... bet you can't. > > so this knowledge confuses many people, > > No- your stupidity confuses many people. i only post facts, if you disagree, you are wrong. it's that simple. > > mainly the so called > > "cell experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong > > interest in wireless communications. > > We don't understand it because it doesn't exist. oh, but watch a little video... which clearly proves my point. done around 1989, long before most cell companies were around... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8 > > they simply have no idea... i do... > > You barely understand how to power your computer on. yes, and that is because on a Mac you only turn it on ONCE, then let the sophisticated hardware and software allow it to sleep / wake for the rest of its life... but you are still using a PC so wouldn't know much about sophisticated computing equipment such as Apple builds. - >> >> You've got your head so far up your a.s you can practically see >> >> daylight again. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > http://www.memoirevive.ch/newsservice/data/upimages/GeoPortvsAppleModem > .J PG Hmm- I saw a modem, fax machine and a PDA. > apple as always built the best... so I guess the question is... why do > you hate quality so much? I love quality. I love functionality. And that is why I don't have an Apple. >> > the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone >> > posting here, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > i only post facts, if you disagree, you are wrong. it's that simple. No- you post the stupid rantings of someone wanting to have SJ's baby. >> > mainly the so called >> > "cell experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > oh, but watch a little video... which clearly proves my point. done > around 1989, long before most cell companies were around... I have a lifelong interest in space exploration. By your standards, that would qualify me to run NASA. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8 > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the sophisticated hardware and software allow it to sleep / wake for > the rest of its life... THat's simply proof that computers have been made for the developmentally challenged, such as yourself. > oh, but watch a little video... which clearly proves my point. done > around 1989, long before most cell companies were around... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8 What point were you trying to prove. All that video shows is a dream list of vaporware. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8 > > What point were you trying to prove. > > All that video shows is a dream list of vaporware. not sure what you mean, apple has every portion in place except for the foldable screen and a bit of AI. wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice rec is there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there. and apple/sj popularized it all... but thanks for playing DTC! O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote in news:iphone- EBE62C.18090302122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net: >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8 >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not sure what you mean, apple has every portion in place except for the > foldable screen and a bit of AI. And it is vaporware. > wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice rec is > there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there. > > and apple/sj popularized it all... Sorry, stupid. Apple did not popularize wireless, www, cameras, voice recording or chat. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99FAC8D5A5457isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/2/07 7:44 PM: > O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote in news:iphone- > EBE62C.18090302122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And it is vaporware. You either do not know the meaning of the word "vaporware" or you are purposely using it incorrectly. Or, perhaps, you are merely clueless about the video in question. Either way: it is *not* vaporware. >> wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice rec is >> there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sorry, stupid. Apple did not popularize wireless, www, cameras, voice > recording or chat. Apple was instrumental in at least some of those. SignatureTeachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself. > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99FAC8D5A5457isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/2/07 7:44 PM: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > purposely using it incorrectly. Or, perhaps, you are merely clueless > about the video in question. Either way: it is *not* vaporware. Is the product in question available to the general public? >>> wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice rec >>> is there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Apple was instrumental in at least some of those. No- Apple included those in their products. They were not instrumental in the devlopment or inital release of many of them. "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99FAD47887837isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/2/07 8:53 PM: >> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post >> Xns99FAC8D5A5457isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/2/07 7:44 PM: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is the product in question available to the general public? What "product"? The video? If so, clearly yes... it is on YouTube. If you mean the fictitious products depicted in the video that were never promised or even claimed to be in the works, well, of course not. >>>> wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice rec >>>> is there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No- Apple included those in their products. They were not instrumental in > the devlopment or inital release of many of them. Interesting movement of the goal posts from you: from popularizing to developing or releasing them first. Why the change? Signature"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson > "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post > Xns99FAD47887837isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/2/07 8:53 PM: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > never promised or even claimed to be in the works, well, of course > not. So if they are ficticious, it would be considered......? I'm sure you can fill in the blank, if you know what the word means, particularly in the context of the way the clip was introduced to these newsgroups. >>>>> wireless is there, www is there, built in camera is there, voice >>>>> rec is there, multi-touch screen is there, ichat is there. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Interesting movement of the goal posts from you: from popularizing to > developing or releasing them first. Why the change? No change- if you are going to be an a.s about it, Snot, fone- they did not popularize any of them. Will that help with your comprehension probelm, or do you just want to be a third grade dick for the rest of your life? "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post Xns99FAD8B091705isheforreal@216.196.97.142 on 12/2/07 9:18 PM: >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WdS4TscWH8 >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > So if they are ficticious, it would be considered......? Fiction. Ideas. Something never announced and therefore not eligible to be reasonably deemed to be "vaporware". As I noted: you show no sign of understanding what vaporware is. > I'm sure you can fill in the blank, Absolutely! > if you know what the word means, particularly in the context of the way the > clip was introduced to these newsgroups. While looking at how *others* looked at the clip might be an interesting side issue, the issue at hand is if the products were vaperware. They were not. ... >>>>> Apple did not popularize wireless, www, cameras, voice recording or chat. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No change- Clearly incorrect. Claim 1: Apple did not popularize .... Claim 2: They were not instrumental in the devlopment or inital release Clearly those claims are not the same. Not even really that close. > they did not popularize any of them. Ah, and now you jump back to claim 1. OK. Can you support that? Who do you think popularized each of those things: wireless, cameras, WWW, voice recording, and chat? > Will that help with your comprehension probelm, or do you just > want to be a third grade dick for the rest of your life? You sure act poorly when your goal post moving is pointed out. Oh well. I forgive you. SignatureThe direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David Friedman > the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting > here, so this knowledge confuses many people, mainly the so called "cell > experts" which simply don't understand apple's deep, lifelong interest > in wireless communications. > > they simply have no idea... i do... As I stated before...GO SHOOT YOURSELF IN THE HEAD! You are way to stupid to live another minute. You are wasting oxygen that others can use. In article <linuxlovesosx-1429AD.10140102122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>, > the difference is, i know Apple's history better than anyone posting > here, Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play in Steve Jobs's world? Since you know Apple's history better than anyone posting here, CERTAINLY you know the answer to THIS one. Especially since the key to the answer was SPOON FED to you awhile back. > Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play > in Steve Jobs's world? After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. Yes, who is Adele Goldberg and what did she do for Apple/SJ? You were close with Milk and Cookies... but you might have been wrong if it was actually Punch and Cookies. So if you don't know and the world doesn't know, it confirms she did nothing for Apple/SJ. > Since you know Apple's history better than anyone posting here, > CERTAINLY you know the answer to THIS one. > > Especially since the key to the answer was SPOON FED to you awhile back. It was? Nobody on usenet knows, Adele certainly doesn't know, only YOU know. Please provide your long hidden secret... everyone is DYING to know! I'm sure we'll all get a great chuckle when you finally tell everyone. :) > > Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play > > in Steve Jobs's world? > > After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's > of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. You mean, after a search through your underwear and with you sticking your head in the sand and refusing to see the answer spoon fed to you, YOU haven't come up with the answer. Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear. >> > Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play >> > in Steve Jobs's world? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear. Why is he doing this search trying to figure this all out ? Did he not say he knows all when it comes to apple ? The ofturd quote: Thanks for playing. > >> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's > >> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why is he doing this search trying to figure this all out ? > Did he not say he knows all when it comes to apple ? That's right. Oxford is the world's most foremost expert on Apple and its history. Just ask him. Then ask him who Adele Goldberg is, and what crucial role did she play in Steve Jobs's life. > > > Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play > > > in Steve Jobs's world? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hint: the answer isn't in the sand, nor is it in your underwear. Wikipedia entry: Adele Goldberg (born July 22, 1945) is a computer scientist who wrote or co-wrote books on the programming language Smalltalk-80. In the 1970's she worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory on the Xerox Alto. She refused to give Steve Jobs a tour of the laboratory unless her superiors would order her to, which they eventually did. She is currently working for Neometron, Inc., of Palo Alto, California. Goldberg was born in Cleveland, Ohio, and grew up in Chicago, Illinois. In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery. Signaturehttp://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/ Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic. Published by Baen, in bookstores now "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post ddfr-307CA2.19501502122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 8:50 PM: >>>> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play >>>> in Steve Jobs's world? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > In 1994 she was inducted as a Fellow of the Association for Computing > Machinery. I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from Apple. The value of the demo is under some debate, but clearly it had some influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a whole. SignatureFacts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. --Aldous Huxley > "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post > ddfr-307CA2.19501502122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 8:50 PM: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > influence on Jobs, Apple, and - ultimately - the home computer market as a > whole. Hard to tell. As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox Parc work--at the same time as Apple (Atari and Amiga). So if Apple hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role Apple actually played. Signaturehttp://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/ Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic. Published by Baen, in bookstores now "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post ddfr-AC31D9.22084802122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 11:08 PM: >> "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post >> ddfr-307CA2.19501502122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 8:50 PM: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > hadn't done it, perhaps one of those would have taken over the role > Apple actually played. Sure: if Apple never existed we would *not* still be using CLI computers... we would be using some form of GUI. Still, it was Apple who deserves the credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively similar had they not. SignatureFacts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. --Aldous Huxley > > As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar > > projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > credit, even if someone else likely would have done something relatively > similar had they not. Some of the credit. The original work was done at Xerox, and Atari and Amiga were selling GUI machines at about the same time as Apple, although they didn't up being as successful. Signaturehttp://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/ Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic. Published by Baen, in bookstores now "David Friedman" <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> stated in post ddfr-F3F9EC.22270302122007@sfo.news.speakeasy.net on 12/2/07 11:27 PM: >>> As best I recall, there were two other computer firms doing similar >>> projects--home computers with graphical interfaces based on the Xerox [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Some of the credit. Of course. Fair enough. > The original work was done at Xerox, and Atari and Amiga were selling GUI > machines at about the same time as Apple, although they didn't up being as > successful. And let us not forget our friends at Microsoft: they have helped push the GUI in some ways as well... though they clearly were not at the forefront really pushing things. At least not on their own OS, anyway. :) SignaturePicture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z Feel free to ask for the recipe. > I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who > (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from > Apple. That's half the answer. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post elmop-A25BDB.05534403122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/3/07 3:53 AM: >> I think the answer to the question, though, is that Adele is the one who >> (grudgingly) gave a short demo of Xerox technology to Jobs and others from >> Apple. > > That's half the answer. And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add anything of value, eh? SignatureIf A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof) > > That's half the answer. > > > And the only "half" that will be posted, being that you shan't ever add > anything of value, eh? Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach into the archives and tell everyone... "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post elmop-E16C00.12324403122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/3/07 10:32 AM: >>> That's half the answer. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach > into the archives and tell everyone... Interesting excuse... basically you want others to read your mind to figure out what *you* think is important. Heck, Adele Goldberg has a pretty large influence in many areas, so what one thing you are thinking about is pretty much a guessing gsme. SmallTalk and its influence on AppleScript / HyperCard? Is that what you are thinking? Who knows... you are simply not willing to say unless people play your game. SignatureGod made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority? > > Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach > > into the archives and tell everyone... > > > Interesting excuse... basically you want others to read your mind to figure > out what *you* think is important. Not at all. That Oxtard misses it, and that you miss it, is your problem. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post elmop-EF4D05.19065403122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/3/07 5:06 PM: >>> Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach >>> into the archives and tell everyone... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That Oxtard misses it, and that you miss it, is your problem. Gee, I even played your guessing game. Face it: you are merely playing it to get attention... SignatureDear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472 > > > That's half the answer. > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Still waiting for Oxtard, the sole expert of Apple history, to reach > into the archives and tell everyone... Don't you ever get tired of boring everyone to death? > Don't you ever get tired of boring everyone to death? You're late to post, but in the running, scoring well. "O x f o r d" <iphone@superphone.com> stated in post iphone-214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net on 12/2/07 4:46 PM: >> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play >> in Steve Jobs's world? > > After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's > of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. He did not want Jobs to see the famous Xerox tour... and would only do so if under "orders". Atkinson has described that tour as an inspiration and as something that helped them know they were already on the right track. Jobs and company understood the importance of the graphical system far better than did the Xerox management. SignatureDear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472 > > After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's > > of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and company understood the importance of the graphical system far better > than did the Xerox management. close. Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY. Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post elmop-1A461D.20361602122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/2/07 6:36 PM: >>> After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's >>> of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed > the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY. And yet Apple was very early in the home networking environment (did *anyone* beat them to that... think of the old PhoneNet adapters) and they pretty much created the desktop publishing industry. > Jobs was so blind, it wasn't funny. Support? SignatureWhat do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic. > > Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed > > the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Support? Plenty. Just read the record. I'm waiting for Oxtard to go back to what he was SPOON-FED and read it. Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you? "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post elmop-9A1DEE.05561403122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/3/07 3:56 AM: >>> Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed >>> the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you? You sure spew a lot of accusations when you cannot support your claims. Oh well. SignatureNever stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >> > Anyway, Jobs and company saw nothing BUT the GUI, and completely missed >> > the significance of the network and the printing. COMPLETELY. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Oh, wait--you're oxtard, aren't you? Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post >elmop-1A461D.20361602122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/2/07 6:36 PM: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Support? (top posting fixed) > >"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> stated in post > >elmop-1A461D.20361602122007@nntp1.usenetserver.com on 12/2/07 6:36 PM: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? To piss you off. Gee, looked like it worked. That's much better. Thank you. I knew you had it in you. >(top posting fixed) > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Gee, looked like it worked. Yes it worked, you actually managed to avoid posting in the Nokia group. Good boy, good boy > Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? They posted it to discover who the stupidest member of the group was. Thank you- you won. >> Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? > >They posted it to discover who the stupidest member of the group was. > >Thank you- you won. Just grow up... maybe something good can come out of you. bobmartin479@hotmail.com wrote in news:475d4026.1048156 @news.individual.net: >>> Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just grow up... maybe something good can come out of you. Maybe I could grow up like you and post the same one sentence post a thousand times in repetition. I think I'll take my chances and not follow your advice or your lead- it would appear that I'm not the one needing to grow up, Pumpkin. O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote in news:iphone- 214999.16462002122007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net: >> Hey, Oxford: who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play >> in Steve Jobs's world? > > After a world wide search going on for nearly 2 months, 24/7 by 1000's > of people, nobody has come up with the secret you keep. That's not true, tard boy. Many of us know the answer. Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx- 432F91.12591301122007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net: > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... Hardly, moron. > Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY > iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network > like a hot potato. Which will make it nothing more than an overpriced iPod. > AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so > they need to play nice or end up like IBM. You mean they'll kick the crap out of Apple products? > --- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that -- as I have predicted for weeks -- Apple will be joining Google in > bidding. Actually, they won't. You're making this up. Google has stated that they will be bidding without any partnerships. > AT&T thought its five-year "exclusive" iPhone agreement with > Apple would have precluded such a bid, but that just shows how poorly > Randall Stephenson understood Steve Jobs. No- AT&T figured out what a piece of crap they were sold. > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... > AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so > they need to play nice or end up like IBM. > > Apple will be joining Google in > bidding. First - Oxy is quoting a BLOG - another fanboy's OPINION Far from fact... This Oxy insane fantasy that "Apple is a much stronger company" is VERY telling of just how delusional our nut boy is - anyone that would state this obviously isn't in touch with reality. Or doesn't have enough brains to look at the financials. Then - as I posted yesterday - Google is NOT going to have partners in the bidding. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/140157/google_to_bid_for_700_mhz_s pectrum.html "Google will file an application to participate in the 700MHz auction on Monday, the company said in a news release. Google's application will not include any partners." And, unlike Oxy, **I** post information from reliable sources - not some fanboy blog... Care to verify the story?? Below may help... http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+700&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS >> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even >> AT&T is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+700&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS If he's a moron, why do you keep repling to him? If people like yourself would stop feeding him, he'd go away. Better yet, KF him and you'll never see his stupidity again Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >>> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even >>> AT&T is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >If people like yourself would stop feeding him, he'd go away. >Better yet, KF him and you'll never see his stupidity again > First - Oxy is quoting a BLOG - another fanboy's OPINION > Far from fact... MEDS, NESSY, MEDS!!.....(C; Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v > MEDS, NESSY, MEDS!!.....(C; yes, poor nessy is losing touch with what is happening to the cell market because of apple's massively successful launch of their iphone. yep, he may need meds to get him through the next few decades... or perhaps an iphone so he can begin to learn why the cell industry is being shook to its knees by apple. Again - MORON alert!!. The complete CRAP you post isn't even close to reality. >> MEDS, NESSY, MEDS!!.....(C; > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > perhaps an iphone so he can begin to learn why the cell industry is > being shook to its knees by apple. > cell industry is > being shook to its knees by apple. "Being shook" portrays PRESENT TENSE and there is no sign of your fantasy occurring at this time. Poor Oxford...the Great DTC wins yet another round at common sense. Larry, bud - just 'cause you and I haven't seen eye to eye in the past.... No reason why a fanatic fanboy like Oxy should get by with posting this totally obvious fanatical fanboy fiction. This evening, my "meds" are doing just fine, thanks. But, it doesn't change the subject at hand. Oxy posts complete fanboy fiction. >> First - Oxy is quoting a BLOG - another fanboy's OPINION >> Far from fact... > > MEDS, NESSY, MEDS!!.....(C; > > Larry > Larry, bud - just 'cause you and I haven't seen eye to eye in the past.... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oxy posts complete fanboy fiction. Absolutely true but he is delusional and really believes he is "Steves" girlfriend and has all of the scoop on everything in "Steves" mind and speaks for "Steve". Reasoning with him is about as valuable as going down to the psych ward of your local hospital this afternoon and trying to establish a dialogue with those unfortunate folks. It would be a total waste of your time. I am also have an engineering background and understand your frustration but you really aren't dealing with a sensible or rational person. The best thing you could possibly do is ignore him. > No reason why a fanatic fanboy like Oxy should get by with posting > this totally obvious fanatical fanboy fiction. He isn't "getting by" with anything. I find him rather amusing, if a little pitiful. You mustn't get so upset. It's bad for your heart! He's a funny buffoon, if nothing else. Teenagers are like that, unless the school bureaucrats make drug addicts out of them when they're in elementary school, at least in America. Oxy is just proof positive of how well sheer advertising and hype can hypnotize common people out of good sense. He was gone for a while, almost a day. I missed him...(c; Larry SignatureIsn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v > And, unlike Oxy, **I** post information from reliable sources - not some > fanboy blog... > Care to verify the story?? Below may help... And the rest of you mostly counter with other blogs. Go figure. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >> And, unlike Oxy, **I** post information from reliable sources - not some >> fanboy blog... >> Care to verify the story?? Below may help... > >And the rest of you mostly counter with other blogs. Go figure. Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >> This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T >> is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >http://www.google.com/search?q=Google+700&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DKUS Lawyers. Contract terms. > This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >Lawyers. >Contract terms. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> - > Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY > iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network > like a hot potato. Internet tablets such as the Nokia N800 already support VoIP... and I'd defy you to find many people who routinely use one who aren't also carrying a cell phone. The landscape is certainly set to change in the next, say, five years but today for a serious phone user (who cares primarily about reliability and not so much about the cost) wirelesss VoIP alone isn't viable. > Or Jobs could tell AT&T that Apple is investing solely in a DATA network > for which it has no voice ambitions. Anyone would see through that -- once you already have a data *network* in place, adding the extensions to support prioritized traffic (needed to get decent performance for VoIP) is easy. Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY >> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >place, adding the extensions to support prioritized traffic (needed to get >decent performance for VoIP) is easy. >This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T >is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... >Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY >iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network >like a hot potato. >AT&T needs to be very careful here, Apple is a much stronger company, so >they need to play nice or end up like IBM. Glad that iphones are still regarded purely as a gimmick here in Australia. They're a load of sh.t. Craig. SignatureCraig Dewick - http://lios.apana.org.au/~craig http://jedi.apana.org.au/~craig Email to craig.foo@bar.lios.apana.org.au - craig.dewick.foo@bar.gmail.com Always striving for a secure long-term future in an insecure short-term world Have you exported a crypto system today? Do your bit to undermine the NSA. Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >>This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T >>is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Craig. >This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T >is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? > >This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T > >is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... > > Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? To piss you off. Gee, looks like it worked. >> >This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T >> >is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Gee, looks like it worked. Yes I can see that. How come you didn't manage earlier. It wasn't that difficult. Was it? I mean avoid posting in the wrong news group. You're are making progress! >> >This rings true of what I've been saying all along, it appears even AT&T >> >is now scared of Apple and its business intentions... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Gee, looks like it worked. Yes I can see that. How come you didn't manage earlier. It wasn't that difficult. Was it? I mean to avoid posting in the wrong news group. You're making progress! > Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY > iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network > like a hot potato. Oh yeah...VoIp on a 30 Kbps to 150 Kbps connection. That has got to rock. Oh...and don't mention the 3G upgrade. That is NOT going to be a simple "one small update". Why are you posting this in a Nokia group? >> Keep in mind, the iPhone is only one small update away from making EVERY >> iPhone compatible with VoIP, then simply dropping the old cell network [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Oh...and don't mention the 3G upgrade. That is NOT going to >be a simple "one small update". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.