 |
 | 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 / July 2008Oh, oh....The Dragon Awakes!
from phonescoop.com: "Nokia to Bring Touch Device to Market This Year Yesterday, 1:54 PM by Eric M. Zeman During a press call today, Nokia's head of mobile devices, Kai Oistamo, confirmed that the company will bring at least one touch-based device to the market during the second half of this year. The device for this year will be focused on the mass market, and not high-end, niche customers. Nokia will later introduce touch devices spanning the entire range of entry-level to high-end phones over time. Exactly when any of these devices will become available was not made clear." So much for closed, proprietary, nanny devices you can't install anything you want on without hacking and voiding the warrantee.... ...They didn't buy Symbian to make it run Windoze. ....of course, they also own my beloved Maemo! The tablets get phones?? THE GIANT AWAKES! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! > "Nokia to Bring Touch Device to Market This Year As always....Apple leads, and the rest just follow. >> "Nokia to Bring Touch Device to Market This Year > > As always....Apple leads, and the rest just follow. I thought Apple just entered the cell phone business a year ago. How is that leading? They had the benefit of all the technology of their predecessors > > As always....Apple leads, and the rest just follow. > > I thought Apple just entered the cell phone business a year ago. How is that > leading? They had the benefit of all the technology of their predecessors they're leading since they have the top phone. cell companies just don't have the deep software experience that apple has, which automatically made all their devices obsolete. you'll see them for the next few years try and catch up but apple will put many of them out of business in the process. >> > As always....Apple leads, and the rest just follow. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > try and catch up but apple will put many of them out of business in the > process. You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the most product, to make the most money. I would consider "the top phone", the one that most people want to buy. Apple's phone is a "smart phone". Combined, all smart phones are bought by roughly 11% of all phones sold worldwide, that means that 89% of phone buyers don't want smart phones. Even if Apple's phone was able to do all that you claim it does, and did it flawlessly, in the eyes of non fanbois, they would only be selling to a very small percentage of cell phone buyers. I prefer competition rather than dominance by any one company. Nokia, this fall is coming out with a phone that apparently is designed to compete with Apple's phone. This is good. This kind of competition will create better phones for all of us consumers. > You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in > business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the most > product, to make the most money. I would consider "the top phone", the one > that most people want to buy. Apple's phone is a "smart phone". No it isn't. Apple has never marketed the iPhone as a "Smart Phone." Apple has an excellent description of the iPhone on their web site, "Phone, iPod, and Internet in one fast 3G device." No where do they mention "Smart Phone" or PDA or UPC or handheld computer, because it isn't any of those things. In fact, the iPhone is severely limited as far as running the typical applications used on a "Smart Phone," and the Apps store on iTunes doesn't begin to solve that problem, at least not yet. A lot of the iPhone criticism is based on its lack of capabilities compared to a Blackberry, Windows Mobile based smart phone or Symbian based smart phone, but this is an unfair comparison because Apple didn't design the iPhone to compete with these devices in terms of capabilities, and they never claimed the capabilities of a smart phone. The iPhone is a phone, music player, and web browser, and Apple seems intent on keeping it that way for now. >> You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in >> business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the most [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The iPhone is a phone, music player, and web browser, and Apple seems > intent on keeping it that way for now. I can appreciate your point, but while Apple may not market the phone as a "smartphone", it is certainly considered as one by many groups that do comparisons of smartphones, and I think it plays to a "similar" group of phone buyers. Here is a PC world comparison for example : http://www.pcworld.com/article/125397/top_10_smart_phones.html > I can appreciate your point, but while Apple may not market the phone as a > "smartphone", it is certainly considered as one by many groups that do > comparisons of smartphones, and I think it plays to a "similar" group of > phone buyers. Here is a PC world comparison for example : > http://www.pcworld.com/article/125397/top_10_smart_phones.html It may play along side smart phones to buyers looking for a phone that can merely browse the web, play music, and make calls. It's not playing to those buyers that need to prepare presentations, edit documents, do massive amounts of e-mail, or tether to a laptop. The fact that some magazines, and apparently a lot of fanboys that post to forums believe that it's a smart phone doesn't change the fact that Apple doesn't consider it to be one. >> You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in >> business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mention "Smart Phone" or PDA or UPC or handheld computer, because it > isn't any of those things. Just because Apple doesn't market is such doesn't mean it isn't one. > In fact, the iPhone is severely limited as far as running the typical > applications used on a "Smart Phone," and the Apps store on iTunes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > design the iPhone to compete with these devices in terms of > capabilities, and they never claimed the capabilities of a smart phone. So the BlackBerry is a smart phone? Okay, I'll bite... I have a BB 8700g issued to me by my employer. Prior to buying an iPhone, I had a personal 8700g with T-Mobile for two years prior (still have it--just dropped the service). I don't have a WinPhone or Symbian device, so it wouldn't be fair for me to do the comparison with them. I'll compare only what I personally have and have used extensively. The BB has a phone. So does the iPhone. The BB has voice mail (with old-style audio menu access). So does the iPhone (with visual VM interface) The BB does e-mail. So does the iPhone. The BB has a calendar. So does the iPhone. The BB has an address book. So does the iPhone. The BB has a memo app. So does the iPhone. The BB can do SMS. So can the iPhone. The BB can do MMS. iPhone can't (yet). Not really a fair comparison--why does the BB handle MMS, but has no easy way to get multimedia onto the phone (this model)? The BB doesn't have a camera (other models do). The iPhone does. The BB can run a downloaded version of Google Maps. The iPhone comes standard with the same app. The BB doesn't have A-GPS (other models do). The 3G iPhone does. The BB has a web browser. So does the iPhone. Neither handles Flash in websites. The BB has Java. The iPhone doesn't. The BB Java development kit is a download from RIM. The iPhone development kit is a download from Apple. The BB has an alarm clock. So does the iPhone. The BB doesn't have a world clock. The iPhone does. The BB has a simple 4 function calculator. The iPhone has a full scientific calculator (2.0 firmware only). The BB has BlueTooth. So does the iPhone. (Although to be fair, the iPhone only supports BT for handsfree headsets.) The BB 8700 doesn't have a music/audio player. (Other models do.) The iPhone has music/audio/video iPod functionality. The BB can run third-party applications. So can the iPhone. Funny, isn't it. The iPhone is pretty much equal in just about all categories of functionality. Better in a few, worse in a few. > The iPhone is a phone, music player, and web browser, and Apple seems > intent on keeping it that way for now. Like it or not, it qualifies as a smart phone. Apple has always done things their own way. They didn't just bring out another Personal Computer, they brought out "the computer for the rest of us." I think they are purposely staying away from the "smart phone" label because most smart phones have lots of complicated little keys and many run crash prone operating systems by Microsoft. They are trying to differentiate themselves. It's called "marketing." >> You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in >> business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mention "Smart Phone" or PDA or UPC or handheld computer, because it > isn't any of those things. Just because Apple doesn't market is such doesn't mean it isn't one. > In fact, the iPhone is severely limited as far as running the typical > applications used on a "Smart Phone," and the Apps store on iTunes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > design the iPhone to compete with these devices in terms of > capabilities, and they never claimed the capabilities of a smart phone. So the BlackBerry is a smart phone? Okay, I'll bite... I have a BB 8700g issued to me by my employer. Prior to buying an iPhone, I had a personal 8700g with T-Mobile for two years prior (still have it--just dropped the service). I don't have a WinPhone or Symbian device, so it wouldn't be fair for me to do the comparison with them. I'll compare only what I personally have and have used extensively. The BB has a phone. So does the iPhone. The BB has voice mail (with old-style audio menu access). So does the iPhone (with visual VM interface) The BB does e-mail. So does the iPhone. The BB has a calendar. So does the iPhone. The BB has an address book. So does the iPhone. The BB has a memo app. So does the iPhone. The BB can do SMS. So can the iPhone. The BB can do MMS. iPhone can't (yet). Not really a fair comparison--why does the BB handle MMS, but has no easy way to get multimedia onto the phone (this model)? The BB doesn't have a camera (other models do). The iPhone does. The BB can run a downloaded version of Google Maps. The iPhone comes standard with the same app. The BB doesn't have A-GPS (other models do). The 3G iPhone does. The BB has a web browser. So does the iPhone. Neither handles Flash in websites. The BB has Java. The iPhone doesn't. The BB Java development kit is a download from RIM. The iPhone development kit is a download from Apple. The BB has an alarm clock. So does the iPhone. The BB doesn't have a world clock. The iPhone does. The BB has a simple 4 function calculator. The iPhone has a full scientific calculator (2.0 firmware only). The BB has BlueTooth. So does the iPhone. (Although to be fair, the iPhone only supports BT for handsfree headsets.) The BB 8700 doesn't have a music/audio player. (Other models do.) The iPhone has music/audio/video iPod functionality. The BB can run third-party applications. So can the iPhone. Funny, isn't it. The iPhone is pretty much equal in just about all categories of functionality. Better in a few, worse in a few. > The iPhone is a phone, music player, and web browser, and Apple seems > intent on keeping it that way for now. Like it or not, it qualifies as a smart phone. Apple has always done things their own way. They didn't just bring out another Personal Computer, they brought out "the computer for the rest of us." I think they are purposely staying away from the "smart phone" label because most smart phones have lots of complicated little keys and many run crash prone operating systems by Microsoft. They are trying to differentiate themselves. It's called "marketing." >> You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in >> business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mention "Smart Phone" or PDA or UPC or handheld computer, because it > isn't any of those things. Just because Apple doesn't market is such doesn't mean it isn't one. > In fact, the iPhone is severely limited as far as running the typical > applications used on a "Smart Phone," and the Apps store on iTunes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > design the iPhone to compete with these devices in terms of > capabilities, and they never claimed the capabilities of a smart phone. So the BlackBerry is a smart phone? Okay, I'll bite... I have a BB 8700g issued to me by my employer. Prior to buying an iPhone, I had a personal 8700g with T-Mobile for two years prior (still have it--just dropped the service). I don't have a WinPhone or Symbian device, so it wouldn't be fair for me to do the comparison with them. I'll compare only what I personally have and have used extensively. The BB has a phone. So does the iPhone. The BB has voice mail (with old-style audio menu access). So does the iPhone (with visual VM interface) The BB does e-mail. So does the iPhone. The BB has a calendar. So does the iPhone. The BB has an address book. So does the iPhone. The BB has a memo app. So does the iPhone. The BB can do SMS. So can the iPhone. The BB can do MMS. iPhone can't (yet). Not really a fair comparison--why does the BB handle MMS, but has no easy way to get multimedia onto the phone (this model)? The BB doesn't have a camera (other models do). The iPhone does. The BB can run a downloaded version of Google Maps. The iPhone comes standard with the same app. The BB doesn't have A-GPS (other models do). The 3G iPhone does. The BB has a web browser. So does the iPhone. Neither handles Flash in websites. The BB has Java. The iPhone doesn't. The BB Java development kit is a download from RIM. The iPhone development kit is a download from Apple. The BB has an alarm clock. So does the iPhone. The BB doesn't have a world clock. The iPhone does. The BB has a simple 4 function calculator. The iPhone has a full scientific calculator (2.0 firmware only). The BB has BlueTooth. So does the iPhone. (Although to be fair, the iPhone only supports BT for handsfree headsets.) The BB 8700 doesn't have a music/audio player. (Other models do.) The iPhone has music/audio/video iPod functionality. The BB can run third-party applications. So can the iPhone. Funny, isn't it. The iPhone is pretty much equal in just about all categories of functionality. Better in a few, worse in a few. > The iPhone is a phone, music player, and web browser, and Apple seems > intent on keeping it that way for now. Like it or not, it qualifies as a smart phone. Apple has always done things their own way. They didn't just bring out another Personal Computer, they brought out "the computer for the rest of us." I think they are purposely staying away from the "smart phone" label because most smart phones have lots of complicated little keys and many run crash prone operating systems by Microsoft. They are trying to differentiate themselves. It's called "marketing." >>> You, are obviously the consummate fanboy. Cell phone companies are in >>> business for one reason, to make a profit. Their goal is to sell the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Just because Apple doesn't market is such doesn't mean it isn't one. That's correct. The reason it isn't one is because it lacks the capabilities of a smart phone, not because what Apple says. > So the BlackBerry is a smart phone? > > Okay, I'll bite... <snip> The big difference is the range of applications for the Blackberry. I.e. if you want to create/edit an Excel spreadsheet, create/edit a Word document, or create/edit a Powerpoint document, you can do it on a Blackberry, but not on an iPhone. But you're correct that a WinMo device has more capability than a Blackberry, and far more capability than an iPhone. > That's correct. The reason it isn't one is because it lacks the > capabilities of a smart phone, not because what Apple says. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What moron is going to create a complex document or spreadsheet on a / smart phone/? Only in their dreams, it is not the right tool for the job. It is like cutting down a tree with a pen knife. If he worked for me and on my time tried that I would fire him outright. End of story. > > The big difference is the range of applications for the Blackberry. I.e. > > if you want to create/edit an Excel spreadsheet, create/edit a Word [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What moron is going to create a complex document or spreadsheet on a / > smart phone/? Very few- but many "morons" like myself tend to EDIT pre-existing documents on theirphones, or loko up reference information in documents stored locally on their phone. And, yes, in a pinch, this moron has create short documents on my Windows Mobile pone. > If he worked for me and on my time tried that I would fire him > outright. End of story. If you worked for me I'd have issued you a REAL smartphone the minute we figured out what your peronal iPhone WASN'T able to do! ;-) >>> The big difference is the range of applications for the Blackberry. I.e. >>> if you want to create/edit an Excel spreadsheet, create/edit a Word [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Very few- but many "morons" like myself tend to EDIT pre-existing documents > on theirphones... Yup. In looking at smartphones (well, feverishly awaiting the e71), this one ability is the clincher. I can do without most of the other features but being able to /modify an offer/ before going into that second meeting with a client (or that new meeting with a second client)... priceless, -Craig > I can do without most of the other features but being able to /modify an > offer/ before going into that second meeting with a client (or that new > meeting with a second client)... Again, Apple makes no claims that the iPhone is competing in the smart phone market, at least for those users that need the true smart phone capabilities. It's a good web browser, music player, and a somewhat lame GSM phone, so if that's what someone needs, it's a good product. It lacks most of the true smart phone features. >> I can do without most of the other features but being able to /modify >> an offer/ before going into that second meeting with a client (or that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > GSM phone, so if that's what someone needs, it's a good product. It > lacks most of the true smart phone features. Repeating it over and over doesn't necessarily make it true. > capabilities. It's a good web browser, music player, and a somewhat lame > GSM phone, so if that's what someone needs, it's a good product. It > lacks most of the true smart phone features. It has precisely the features most people desire in a small credit card thin cell phone. That is why the iPhone is selling so well all over the world. I saw yesterday it will now be October 2008 before there is a restock of the new iPhone 3G in many countries. the reason the other 'true' smartphones do not do so well is these do not have the featue set most normal people crave. >>>> The big difference is the range of applications for the Blackberry. >>>> I.e. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > priceless, > -Craig If I was the client and you walked into a presentation with only a smart phone, I'd take your presentation about as seriously as you obviously do. That is: Not much.... I'd wonder why you place so much faith in a single gadget and why you're more concerned with your own comfort (carrying only a lightweight phone instead of a laptop) than in my needs as the client. I'd take seriously the business person that had the presentation electronically *and* on paper, already printed and ready to give, as well as the alternative offer already prepared. I don't like people that can't plan ahead. > If I was the client and you walked into a presentation with only a > smart phone, I'd take your presentation about as seriously as you > obviously do. That is: Not much.... So the size of his computer is obviously more important than the content of his presentation? Thanks for the tip- I'll start lugging my old Kaypro around- that ought to REALLY impress people! > I'd wonder why you place so much faith in a single gadget and why > you're more concerned with your own comfort (carrying only a > lightweight phone instead of a laptop) than in my needs as the client. You've never seen an Impatica Showmate, then... http://www.impatica.com/showmate/ A device that wirelessly plays Powerpoint presentations from Blackberries, Palms, WinMo or Symbian devices through any projector. Personally, all else being equal, I'd be more impressed with the person that runs an entire Powerpoint off of two deck-of-cards-sized devices he pulls out of his coat pocket. Businesspeople appreciate "cool tech" as much as the next person. > I'd take seriously the business person that had the presentation > electronically *and* on paper, already printed and ready to give, as well > as the alternative offer already prepared. I don't like people that can't > plan ahead. You're assuming one can't print from a handheld either... 3rd-party software is a wonderful thing... >>>>> The big difference is the range of applications for the Blackberry. >>>>> I.e. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > phone, I'd take your presentation about as seriously as you obviously > do. That is: Not much.... Sorry, I obviously wandered into a religious war. My mistake. -Craig >>>>>> The big difference is the range of applications for the >>>>>> Blackberry. I.e. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Sorry, I obviously wandered into a religious war. My mistake. Is there any other kind? And yes, it's your mistake. Craig <netburgher@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in news:%dAgk.13634$cW3.3056 @nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com: > Sorry, I obviously wandered into a religious war. My mistake. > > -Craig WE WILL ROOT YOU OUT AND STONE YOU....(c; >> That's correct. The reason it isn't one is because it lacks the >> capabilities of a smart phone, not because what Apple says. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > If he worked for me and on my time tried that I would fire him > outright. End of story. Amen. Just because you can edit documents on a BB or WinPhone doesn't mean you *should*. Only a masochist would attempt it. Being able to view them, is however another matter. If you're traveling, and someone sends you something, you can view it and decide whether you need to call someone back at the office to take care of it, or it can wait until you return to the office. > >> Apple has an excellent description of the iPhone on their web site, > >> "Phone, iPod, and Internet in one fast 3G device." No where do they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's correct. The reason it isn't one is because it lacks the > capabilities of a smart phone, not because what Apple says. but the iphone changes all definitions of all phones, so everything apple does will now be shaped / modeled by the iphone, no other cell phone matters at this point in the game. > > So the BlackBerry is a smart phone? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > document, or create/edit a Powerpoint document, you can do it on a > Blackberry, but not on an iPhone. but the iphone app store has only been around for 8 days. the blackberry, some 5 years... so it's quite clear the blackberry has now been buried by the simple force of momentum. > But you're correct that a WinMo device has more capability than a > Blackberry, and far more capability than an iPhone. not for long, the iphone will clearly kill off all other smart phones. the massive size of the OSX development communitity and larger installed base of the iphone units dictates it. but let's all remember Palm, RIMM, Moto, Nokia for what they tried to accomplish during their heyday, they really tried before Apple entered their market... now, there isn't anything they can do to stop the iphone from taking over. a good video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Tbh_umdSg > not for long, the iphone will clearly kill off all other smart phones. > > the massive size of the OSX development communitity and larger installed > base of the iphone units dictates it. Not if any real development is stifled by the draconian terms of the SDK that others have reported. > but let's all remember Palm, RIMM, Moto, Nokia for what they tried to > accomplish during their heyday, they really tried before Apple entered > their market... now, there isn't anything they can do to stop the iphone > from taking over. Except do what they already do: provide steak instead of sizzle. Let's see a few apps that'll turn the iPhone into a smartphone, or else it'll remain exactly what it is today: "the best iPod ever." > a good video is here: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Tbh_umdSg Excactly my point- the iPhone compares very favorably vs. other non- smartphones. I have no doubt it'll crush every other current phone in it's category: multimedia "feature" phones. >>> "Nokia to Bring Touch Device to Market This Year >> >> As always....Apple leads, and the rest just follow. > > I thought Apple just entered the cell phone business a year ago. How is that > leading? They had the benefit of all the technology of their predecessors Actually they don't have the benefit in some ways. I was talking to an ex-GF that works at Motorola, and I was complaining to her about the voice-dialing on my Motorola phone (their old system of voice-tags where you train the phone worked much better for names with strange pronunciations than their new system where it's pure voice-recognition). I said to her "but at least I have voice-dialing, unlike the iPhone." She said that the voice-dialing firmware and algorithms are highly proprietary, and are the result of many man-years of development, by teams in many different countries (for all the different languages). No one is giving these algorithms to Apple (or anyone else), nor are they willing to sell them to a competitor. Perhaps there will be an extra-cost add-on application sold in the Apps store for voice dialing, but I doubt it because it's really an application that is tied inextricably to the phone's firmware. I'm sure that eventually Apple will catch up with the rest of the industry in terms of the actual phone part of the iPhone. >>>> "Nokia to Bring Touch Device to Market This Year >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > phone's firmware. I'm sure that eventually Apple will catch up with the > rest of the industry in terms of the actual phone part of the iPhone. In as much as Apple will catch up to the rest in certain areas, the rest will catch up to Apple in other areas, and we, the consumer, should get some fine products as a result of the competition > In as much as Apple will catch up to the rest in certain areas, the > rest will catch up to Apple in other areas, and we, the consumer, > should get some fine products as a result of the competition http://youtube.com/watch?v=rpJQNMBNtOo Yes we will.....(c; > from phonescoop.com: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > THE GIANT AWAKES! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! I thought Nokia already had a touch screen. I was in London a year ago and wandering around Heathrow waiting for my flight home. I was site-seeing at one of those overpriced personal electronics stores you find in airports. The sales guy tried to get me to buy some Nokia gadget for 400 pounds. I couldn't justify spending $800 for a phone, even if unlocked and really cool. I can't remember for sure, but I thought it was a touchscreen. Don't remember the model number. Doesn't Nokia bring out a lot of phone models in Europe and Asia that never make it to the US? I know they had a titanium slider a bunch of years ago that I would have died for, but it was never available in the US. > from phonescoop.com: > > "Nokia to Bring Touch Device to Market This Year > > THE GIANT AWAKES! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!! I know you're a huge Nokia fan, and I agree that the sleeping giant has been awakened, but I believe you have the wrong company for that title. Keep your eyes on the Blackberry Thunder, due to arrive in the last quarter of this year and my guess is you might find an iPhone with many of its flaws fixed, or at least added functionality, and certainly the (still) better network: http://crackberry.com/details-touchscreen-blackberry-thunder Just to be fair, here's a negative take on the prospective Thunder (which, of course, the author doesn't even have), though he doesn't bother to explain WHY he's negative on it. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-9990544-62.html Here's some point-counterpoint: http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_the_blackberry_thunder_will_fail > I know you're a huge Nokia fan, and I agree that the sleeping giant > has been awakened, but I believe you have the wrong company for that > title. I'm guilty as charged. My loyalty is not to Nokia, per se, but to the open source community Nokia has chosen, quite wisely, to support by opening up its research labs and allowing the vast world network of really brilliant people to create the products THEY want, not what some company bean counter THINKS we want, like the very closed environment of the iPhone. Case in point....Apple vs Micro$oft. Apple COULD have wiped Micro$oft off the planet, swept them aside, if it hadn't been so greedy and proprietary and closed up. The outside dreamers and coders made Bill Gates the richest man in the world, just because he opened up a tiny little hole in his company and let them play in his playroom, without forcing them to do his bidding and telling them what they could and could not do with his OS. What did we get? By a huge margin, the most useful and widest range of software ever run on a single OS. Bill Gates didn't make Micro$oft number 1....the coders outside the company did. Apple is still too stupid to see that fact. So, they ride around with training wheels bolted on playing flashlight games on the little playstation phone. Another 3G owner approached me just yesterday to ask about the nasty ol' N800 Linux box. I was watching Sky News on KMplayer/mplayer off the net. I pulled a terrible trick on him just as he was about to leave. I asked him if he'd every played with Numpty Physics, the most addictive silly game I ever encountered. Of course, he hadn't seen it, so I booted it and gave him a simple tour, then handed the stylus to him so he could play. His departure got delayed over an hour...(c; Noone got shot playing Numpty Physics, but all have gotten terribly frustrated...including me. The games are written by the USERS and posted here: http://numptyphysics.garage.maemo.org/levels/ See how simple it looks? Damned sadists, every one of them! Chess is childsplay in comparison. The lack of a manual is part of the game as you discover things it does and its undocumented controls. I just sat back and watched him torment with his tongue hanging out trying, mostly in vain, to get the little red object to hit the little yellow star against the forces of gravity and time....(c; "Is this a sellphone?", he asked. "No, it's a Skype phone.", I admitted. "It makes free calls over sellphone or wifi data channels. It also has about 25 other message systems, IRC, Gizmo and all the Linux communicators I've never used. Who did you want to contact?" I booted Skype and called his Iphone on the speakers, eating up his minutes. "How many minutes does it have per month?", he asked. "Well, they call it unlimited, but they question you if you use over 10,000 minutes a month about what you're doing for the $24/YEAR they charge." I then booted Google Talk and popped out the little webcam when I saw Tom had his N800 online and made a video call. He and Tom talked a while. Tom's my fault. He was looking for a PDA and I let him play with my N800 on Alltel in a pizza shop with free wifi. He's a total N800 addict now. My Iphone guy went away shaking his head over the vast array of useful open source freeware apps listed here: http://maemo.org/downloads/updated/OS2008/250/ It takes a while to load as it assembles up to 250 apps, more than there are. None of them are flashlights, though......sorry. We have this perpensity to turn the tablet into other systems with virtual machines like ScummVM: http://maemo.org/downloads/product/OS2008/scummvm/ and lots of other game consoles so you can run their games on it. Garnet VM runs all the Palm software, now in portrait mode full screen. This one: http://maemo.org/downloads/product/OS2008/tiemu2/ turns it into many of the Texas Instruments graphing scientific calculators. I have it on mine, and have yet to figure out how to use most of its functions and capabilities. When the engine boots, you pick which of the calculator emulations you want and the engine boots it. Several versions of full Linux and Googles new Android have all been installed. Android looks interesting as they are booting it from Maemo. I'm out of memory, again, so will wait until Android apps make it so I can't stand being without it...(c; We don't have an accelerometer like the iPhone, so the boys coded up a bluetooth interface so I can use the Wii Remote, complete with its joystick if I like, with the tablet, instead. I don't carry the Wiimote out because I got some really strange looks fooling with it at lunch in a restaurant playing Quake II....(c; Yes, I'm a total Nokia fanboi as long as they keep coming out with open source products the real geniuses can tear apart and do amazing things with. When you install one, Nokia pops up a message saying they had nothing to do with what you are about to install and are not responsible for what it does or doesn't do....That's just fine by me... I'm on rdesktop to my XP box sitting out here by the river typing this on the N800 with the BT folding keyboard. There sure are a lot less boats zooming around on weekends, especially waterskiiers, now that gas is $5/gallon at most marinas. Mama alligator is keeping an eye on me below the seawall. She's about 18' long! She's getting ready to lay her eggs and we're all anxious to see them hatch. All I see is this long black thing, underwater with two eyes and a snout sitting perfectly still, not making a single ripple. Well, Lunch time...Chinese, today. C'ya. > Case in point....Apple vs Micro$oft. Apple COULD have wiped Micro$oft > off the planet, swept them aside, if it hadn't been so greedy and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > forcing them to do his bidding and telling them what they could and > could not do with his OS. Or only sell what he did permit them to provide, through him. Larry, Yawn That great 'physics game' has been on the iPhone from the begining. It is called iPhysics and has many, many applications that it launches including a neat Pin ball machine that is very real from sound to shaking the table. So you guys ripped it off eh and added it to the Nokia?You are still following Apple and the Apple fan boy comunity of slick developers. You could have been there are year ago on the iPhone. I remember seeing them talking about the iPhone's iPhysics on TV before I even bought the iPhone. > I know you're a huge Nokia fan, and I agree that the sleeping giant has > been awakened, but I believe you have the wrong company for that title. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://crackberry.com/details-touchscreen-blackberry-thunder I have my doubts on the either the device's existence, or it's supposed release date of 3rd quarter this year. It's too radical a departure for RIM to be releasing in just a couple of months- in typical cellphone fanboy style, someone would've dug up the FCC applications, leaked mock up pictures etc. if it was due within 60-90 days. And I REALLY have a hard time believing a completely keyboardless Blackberry is on the drawing boards. For all of the iPhone's positives, and the love it's users have for it, a study of early iPhone owners told us the ONE thing the majority of users wanted to see added to a future model was a "real" keyboard or at least a dialpad. Why "copy" the competitor's product with one that has the same achille's heel, particularly when that "heel" happens to be your company's signature feature (meaning RIM and keyboards!) I might be all wet, but I suspect that RIM has something else up their sleeve- surely a larger/higher-res screen device with better browser and multimedia, but I doubt they'll copy the iPhone form factor that closely- I'd think a slide-out keyboard hidden beneath a larger screen would be more their style than a completely keyboardless device. Just my gut feeling, (and I'm sure I'm my gut's wrong, as well as being far too large!) oesn't bother to > explain WHY he's negative on it. > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-9990544-62.html > > Here's some point-counterpoint: > http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_the_blackberry_thunder_will_fail >> I know you're a huge Nokia fan, and I agree that the sleeping giant >> has been awakened, but I believe you have the wrong company for that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Just my gut feeling, (and I'm sure I'm my gut's wrong, as well as > being far too large!) What you're saying makes sense to me. But, while due dates are often missed by a margin, there are just so many 'reports' of the Thunder that it seems hard to totally discount it as a device. I guess we'll see soon enough. I, on the other hand, just bought an iPod Touch (I got a great deal from a graduate student who got one included with her Apple computer purchase and didn't want it) and just finished installing the 2.0 software update. I want to experiment with the iphone's functionality and see how I like it before I consider switching. |
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.