 |
 | 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 / Cingular / July 2007Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1635816,00.html Meg wrote on [26 Jun 2007 02:42:55 -0000]: > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1635816,00.html Quit spamming your w.nk. >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1635816,00.html I'm gonna laugh my a.s off when you whiney little babies get your precious i(diot)Phones and discover what a horrible piece of sh.t it actually is. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!! > >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1635816,00.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!! I'll grant that you're an expert on sh.t, seeing as how that's what you're made of, but that doesn't mean that you know sh.t about cell phones. You're just jealous because even though a child can use one intuitively, you're too stupid to figure it out.  SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> >http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1635816,00.html >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >You're just jealous because even though a child can use one intuitively, >you're too stupid to figure it out. You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting their pants over a piece of sh.t PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their hands on. Do you think you could hold the grandstanding to a minimum until you actually have real life experience with the thing, or is your life *THAT* empty??? > I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting > their pants over a piece of sh.t PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their > hands on. You've already decided it's a piece of sh.t without having ever put your hands on one. Hypocrite lately? SignatureJR >> I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting >> their pants over a piece of sh.t PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their >> hands on. > >You've already decided it's a piece of sh.t without having ever put >your hands on one. Hypocrite lately? Many here (especially the spam whores) have decided it's the greatest thing since sliced bread without putting their hands on it yet. So before you talk about hypocrisy, look around this group. > You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting > their pants over a piece of sh.t PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their > hands on. You've been sh.tting about it more than anyone has been wetting their pants about it. > Do you think you could hold the grandstanding to a minimum until you > actually have real life experience with the thing, or is your life > *THAT* empty??? Exactly where and when have I been grandstanding about it? If anyone around here has been grandstanding and going apeshit, that person is you. The majority of the rest of us, including some of the nay-sayers, have been reasonable about it. But I guess it's OK for people with empty lives, like you, to go ballistic about just about anything, right? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> You wish. I just think it's funny as HELL to see everyone wetting >> their pants over a piece of sh.t PHONE that NO ONE has yet put their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >But I guess it's OK for people with empty lives, like you, to go >ballistic about just about anything, right? Aww, does it really make you *that* uncomfortable when someone doesn't get as big of a boner as you about a stupid a.s phone THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN RELEASED YET??? I could understand it if it were next week and we were reading *real* reports from *real* people about their *real* experiences with the i(diot)Phone. But, it's not, and all else is conjecture until it happens. Now, go back to creaming your jeans waiting for your i(diot)Phone. > Aww, does it really make you *that* uncomfortable when someone doesn't > get as big of a boner as you about a stupid a.s phone THAT HASN'T EVEN [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > conjecture until it happens. Now, go back to creaming your jeans > waiting for your i(diot)Phone. Ahahahah...typical talk from a future customer. We'll see who the idiot is when you're still holding out because of all the sh.t you talk. >> Aww, does it really make you *that* uncomfortable when someone doesn't >> get as big of a boner as you about a stupid a.s phone THAT HASN'T EVEN [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ahahahah...typical talk from a future customer. We'll see who the idiot > is when you're still holding out because of all the sh.t you talk. I know sure as f.ck can't live without a third mp3 player. Especially one with so much storage and expandable as well! > I could understand it if it were next week and we were reading *real* > reports from *real* people about their *real* experiences with the > i(diot)Phone. But, it's not, and all else is conjecture until it > happens. Now, go back to creaming your jeans waiting for your > i(diot)Phone. Yeah, you're anti-iPhone hysteria is all conjecture too, but it is a conjecture that goes against Apple's track record. On the other hand, the pro-iPhone conjectures are supported by Apple's track record. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> I could understand it if it were next week and we were reading *real* >> reports from *real* people about their *real* experiences with the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >conjecture that goes against Apple's track record. On the other hand, >the pro-iPhone conjectures are supported by Apple's track record. Much like a neutered dog, you just don't get it, do you? I'm always skeptical over something that generates this much faux "buzz" when two major companies are involved. Add to that the i(diot)Phone is being advertised with features I'll never use. It's a PHONE, goddammit. All I need a PHONE to do is make and receive PHONE CALLS, not watch stupid YouTube videos or listen to music. That's what computers and CD players are for. At least if one of those craps out, I still have the functionality of the other devices. You Kool-aid drinking lemmings who want to be the de facto guinea pig beta testers for Crapple and Stinkular are candidates for psychological experiments in mass mind control (read: cults). All the "hysteria" that you claim is coming from the i(diot)Phone lemmings. Look at the posts here. But you go and get your precious i(diot)Phone. And the first post you make here bitching about it, expect me to jump all over it. Go ahead, I'll be waiting... > >Yeah, you're anti-iPhone hysteria is all conjecture too, but it is a > >conjecture that goes against Apple's track record. On the other > >hand, the pro-iPhone conjectures are supported by Apple's track > >record. > > Much like a neutered dog, you just don't get it, do you? Much like a rabid dog, you make mindless attacks. > I'm always skeptical over something that generates this much faux > "buzz" when two major companies are involved. You're not skeptical, you're on the attack, pretending that your biased and baseless opinion is fact. > Add to that the i(diot)Phone is being advertised with features I'll > never use. The idiot is you, not the phone. Just because *you* will never use those features doesn't mean that no one else will use them. If the phone doesn't fit your needs and wants, don't buy it. What is so f.cking hard to understand about that? Got a clue for you: the world doesn't revolve around you--it really doesn't. > All I need a PHONE to do is make and receive PHONE CALLS, not watch > stupid YouTube videos or listen to music. That's what computers and > CD players are for. So you would rather carry three items than one item? Well, I'm not a big strong, brainless musclebound he man like you; I'd rather carry just one thing that does all of those functions. > You Kool-aid drinking lemmings who want to be the de facto guinea pig > beta testers for Crapple and Stinkular are candidates for > psychological experiments in mass mind control (read: cults). Yeah, right; anyone who doesn't think like you is a lemming. Last time I looked, you're not Big Brother. > All the "hysteria" that you claim is coming from the i(diot)Phone > lemmings. Look at the posts here. I have, and I see you and two or three (at most) other anti-Apple ideologues ranting and raving like rabid dogs barking at the full moon. > And the first post you make here bitching about it, expect me to jump > all over it. Go ahead, I'll be waiting... I strongly doubt that there will be anything to bitch about. But you please keep howling, Fido; you're still good for a few laughs. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> >Yeah, you're anti-iPhone hysteria is all conjecture too, but it is a >> >conjecture that goes against Apple's track record. On the other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Much like a rabid dog, you make mindless attacks. I'm so sorry, it appears you are on the rag. That must explain why you are so touchy when someone disagrees with your rose colored view of stupid a.s PHONE. Damn, you are one sad little person. >> I'm always skeptical over something that generates this much faux >> "buzz" when two major companies are involved. > >You're not skeptical, you're on the attack, pretending that your biased >and baseless opinion is fact. You have no facts to back up anything being said about the i(diot)Phone other than what the suits at Crapple want you to know. The sales staff has clearly done their job. Jim Jones offers you Kool-aid and you ask for more. What an IDIOT you are. >> Add to that the i(diot)Phone is being advertised with features I'll >> never use. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >phone doesn't fit your needs and wants, don't buy it. What is so >f.cking hard to understand about that? What is so hard for you to understand it's a f.cking PHONE, for gods sake!?!? Anyone who feels they *need* the i(diot)Phone is sorely lacking in the self-respect department. >Got a clue for you: the world doesn't revolve around you--it really >doesn't. Really? I'd imagine most people who didn't drink the Kool-aid feels the same way I do bout the i(diot)Phone. An overpriced, overhyped piece of junk. Didn't I read somewhere the battery wasn't user changeable? f.ck, if people who buy something like that aren't the most stupid pieces of sh.t in the history of mankind. >> All I need a PHONE to do is make and receive PHONE CALLS, not watch >> stupid YouTube videos or listen to music. That's what computers and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >big strong, brainless musclebound he man like you; I'd rather carry just >one thing that does all of those functions. If you have to carry that much sh.t around just to keep you entertained, your problems go much deeper than any "PHONE" can resolve. Please mention this to your psychiatrist on your next visit so he can adjust you meds. >> You Kool-aid drinking lemmings who want to be the de facto guinea pig >> beta testers for Crapple and Stinkular are candidates for >> psychological experiments in mass mind control (read: cults). > >Yeah, right; anyone who doesn't think like you is a lemming. Last time >I looked, you're not Big Brother. And I never pretended to be. You're just pissed because I'm not wetting my pants over a goddamn PHONE, like you are. Damn, you're pathetic. >> All the "hysteria" that you claim is coming from the i(diot)Phone >> lemmings. Look at the posts here. > >I have, and I see you and two or three (at most) other anti-Apple >ideologues ranting and raving like rabid dogs barking at the full moon. Then you aren't looking hard enough. I figure most are just biting their tongues waiting for all the faux hysteria to calm down, Ms. Astroturf. Quite frankly, just about all of the English speaking world has heard of the i(diot)Phone by now, and they don't need constant reminders and faux testimonials of how great it is BEFORE THE f.cking THING IS EVEN RELEASED!!! >> And the first post you make here bitching about it, expect me to jump >> all over it. Go ahead, I'll be waiting... > >I strongly doubt that there will be anything to bitch about. But you >please keep howling, Fido; you're still good for a few laughs. Now you'll have to sit in your shanty and cry to yourself about your bad decision to buy an i(diot)Phone because you'll be too afraid of being told "I told you so" to complain here. > I'm so sorry, it appears you are on the rag. That must explain why > you are so touchy when someone disagrees with your rose colored view > of stupid a.s PHONE. Damn, you are one sad little person. The only opinion I've expressed is about you and your hypocrisy, dogbreath; I haven't expressed any opinion about the phone itself, moron. You, on the other hand, have been badmouthing the iPhone and Apple even though you have had zero experience with the phone. > >You're not skeptical, you're on the attack, pretending that your > >biased and baseless opinion is fact. > > You have no facts to back up anything being said about the > i(diot)Phone other than what the suits at Crapple want you to know. That is the reason that I haven't said anything about the phone itself. You on the other hand, have absolutely no facts to back your baseless and worthless attacks. > What is so hard for you to understand it's a f.cking PHONE, for gods > sake!?!? What makes you think that I don't understand that? Oh yes, your rabid anti-Apple bigotry is what makes you think that. > Anyone who feels they *need* the i(diot)Phone is sorely lacking in > the self-respect department. I didn't say anything about needing the phone, illiterate moron. Learn to read for comprehension. > >Got a clue for you: the world doesn't revolve around you--it really > >doesn't. > > Really? I'd imagine most people who didn't drink the Kool-aid feels > the same way I do bout the i(diot)Phone That's right; you imagine it, because you're too self-centered to accept reality. > An overpriced, overhyped piece of junk. What evidence do you have that it is a piece of junk? Absolutely no evidence at all. And "overpriced, overhyped" is merely your opinion. > >> All I need a PHONE to do is make and receive PHONE CALLS, not > >> watch stupid YouTube videos or listen to music. That's what [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > entertained, your problems go much deeper than any "PHONE" can > resolve. That's what you said that you do. I didn't say it. > >> You Kool-aid drinking lemmings who want to be the de facto guinea > >> pig beta testers for Crapple and Stinkular are candidates for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And I never pretended to be. In this thread, you most certainly act as if you believe that you are. I believe that you haven't pretended to be him, but only because you act as if you believe that you are him. > Now you'll have to sit in your shanty and cry to yourself about your > bad decision to buy an i(diot)Phone because you'll be too afraid of > being told "I told you so" to complain here. I don't know where your "here" is, but it certainly isn't my "here". But the bottom line is that you are a liar and a hypocrite with delusions of adequacy, so just f.ck off. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Screw the i(diot)Phone <apple@sucks.a.s> wrote >> I'm so sorry, it appears you are on the rag. That must explain why >> you are so touchy when someone disagrees with your rose colored >> view of stupid a.s PHONE. Damn, you are one sad little person. > The only opinion I've expressed is about you and your hypocrisy, > dogbreath; I haven't expressed any opinion about the phone itself, Bare faced lie. > moron. Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child. > You, on the other hand, have been badmouthing the iPhone and > Apple even though you have had zero experience with the phone. You in spades. >>> You're not skeptical, you're on the attack, pretending >>> that your biased and baseless opinion is fact. >> You have no facts to back up anything being said about the >> i(diot)Phone other than what the suits at Crapple want you to know. > That is the reason that I haven't said anything about the phone itself. Bare faced lie. > You on the other hand, have absolutely no facts > to back your baseless and worthless attacks. You two make a good pair then. None of the rest of your juvenile rant worth bothering with, all flushed where it belongs. On 6/26/07 4:19 PM, in article michelle-CCC585.14191226062007@news.east.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: >> I'm so sorry, it appears you are on the rag. That must explain why >> you are so touchy when someone disagrees with your rose colored view >> of stupid a.s PHONE. Damn, you are one sad little person. > > The only opinion I've expressed is about you and your hypocrisy, > dogbreath; I haven't expressed any opinion about the phone itself, moron. Don't insult my German Shepherd. His breath doesn't smell of reeking sh.t like this a.shole. >On 6/26/07 4:19 PM, in article >michelle-CCC585.14191226062007@news.east.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >His breath doesn't smell of reeking sh.t like this a.shole. You seem awfully familiar with the smell of your dog's breath and feces. Does the ASPCA know what you are up to? On 6/27/07 9:21 PM, in article jv5683hruo2vfvovh2rkiiet9ve5ccgdt1@4ax.com, "Screw the iPhone (diot)" <apple@sucks.a.s> wrote: >> On 6/26/07 4:19 PM, in article >> michelle-CCC585.14191226062007@news.east.cox.net, "Michelle Steiner" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You seem awfully familiar with the smell of your dog's breath and > feces. Does the ASPCA know what you are up to? f.ck off Zero. <ding> (Watch this folks) >On 6/27/07 9:21 PM, in article jv5683hruo2vfvovh2rkiiet9ve5ccgdt1@4ax.com, >"Screw the iPhone (diot)" <apple@sucks.a.s> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >(Watch this folks) Watch what? You blow your dog while talking on your i(diot)Phone? Or is Michelle going to show us her "extra" equipment? <shudder> On 6/28/07 1:55 PM, in article uv08835q80nv22r382iq8c04vre2s5k6u7@4ax.com, "Screw the iPhone (diot)" <apple@sucks.a.s> wrote: >> On 6/27/07 9:21 PM, in article jv5683hruo2vfvovh2rkiiet9ve5ccgdt1@4ax.com, >> "Screw the iPhone (diot)" <apple@sucks.a.s> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Watch what? You blow your dog while talking on your i(diot)Phone? Or > is Michelle going to show us her "extra" equipment? <shudder> Up yours, drooling canine! <ding> Here goes... >> I'm so sorry, it appears you are on the rag. That must explain why >> you are so touchy when someone disagrees with your rose colored view >> of stupid a.s PHONE. Damn, you are one sad little person. > >The only opinion I've expressed is about you and your hypocrisy, >dogbreath; I haven't expressed any opinion about the phone itself, moron. Bullshit, you cow. For example, you said it would supplant the iPod's UI on the day of its release. >You, on the other hand, have been badmouthing the iPhone and Apple even >though you have had zero experience with the phone. I'm badmouthing it based on what is known now. A non-removable battery? A non-removable SIM card? Are you f.cking serious? I'm also taking shots at EVERYONE who has "got to have this phone the day its released" without any real user experiences. What you see as baseless criticism is really a condemnation of all the hype based solely on what Crapple's and Stinkular's marketing departments have released thus far. Go back to chewing your cud, cow. >> >You're not skeptical, you're on the attack, pretending that your >> >biased and baseless opinion is fact. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You on the other hand, have absolutely no facts to back your baseless >and worthless attacks. See above, liar. I could find other examples you've forgotten, but you aren't worth the effort, cow. >> What is so hard for you to understand it's a f.cking PHONE, for gods >> sake!?!? > >What makes you think that I don't understand that? Oh yes, your rabid >anti-Apple bigotry is what makes you think that. Your continued defense of it non-phone functions, that's what, cow. >> Anyone who feels they *need* the i(diot)Phone is sorely lacking in >> the self-respect department. > >I didn't say anything about needing the phone, illiterate moron. Learn >to read for comprehension. What part of the word 'anyone' do you not understand, cow? >> >Got a clue for you: the world doesn't revolve around you--it really >> >doesn't. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That's right; you imagine it, because you're too self-centered to accept >reality. Try 'I'm too centered in reality to go all ga-ga over a stupid a.s PHONE!' >> An overpriced, overhyped piece of junk. > >What evidence do you have that it is a piece of junk? Absolutely no >evidence at all. And "overpriced, overhyped" is merely your opinion. It has two names on it, Crapple, and worse, Stinkular. My long experience with the cellular industry has shown me that a device's worthiness is often inversely proportionate to its pre-market hype. >> >> All I need a PHONE to do is make and receive PHONE CALLS, not >> >> watch stupid YouTube videos or listen to music. That's what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >That's what you said that you do. I didn't say it. No, I never said I do. Please take a course in reading comprehension, you stupid fat cow. When I'm listening to music, the phone can go to hell. Same when I'm on a computer, the rest isn't necessary. You are probably one of those big a.s bitches who listens to an MP3 player while talking on the phone and putting on makeup and cramming a Big Mac in your fat face while driving your big a.s SUV down the road. >> >> You Kool-aid drinking lemmings who want to be the de facto guinea >> >> pig beta testers for Crapple and Stinkular are candidates for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I believe that you haven't pretended to be him, but only because you act >as if you believe that you are him. Again, the reading comprehension bites your big a.s. Do you even know what the term "Big Brother" actually means? I didn't think so. See above, you dumb cow. >> Now you'll have to sit in your shanty and cry to yourself about your >> bad decision to buy an i(diot)Phone because you'll be too afraid of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But the bottom line is that you are a liar and a hypocrite with >delusions of adequacy, so just f.ck off. We'll find out who the liar and hypocrite is when you buy your dumbass i(diot)Phone and have buyers regret within six months. I think it's funny as hell!! > You are probably one of those big a.s bitches who listens to an MP3 > player while talking on the phone and putting on makeup and cramming > a Big Mac in your fat face while driving your big a.s SUV down the > road. Wrong again, dogbreath; I am not your mother. You are a turd. You have always been a turd. You will always be a turd. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> You are probably one of those big a.s bitches who listens to an MP3 >> player while talking on the phone and putting on makeup and cramming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You are a turd. You have always been a turd. You will always be a turd. Mooo! Mooo! Mooo! Tell me, when you get your i(diot)Phone, are you going to load up the contact list with the numbers of every takeout joint in town? Mooo! Mooo! Get on back to the barn, Bessie, it's milkin' time! BTW, your followup trick didn't work. I'm no novice, you dumb cow. > It's a PHONE, goddammit. No it's NOT, goddammit. Since you are too f.cking dense to know WHAT it actually is, maybe it's time you shut the f.ck up! >> It's a PHONE, goddammit. > >No it's NOT, goddammit. Since you are too f.cking dense to know WHAT it >actually is, maybe it's time you shut the f.ck up! Says the lemming. It's a phone, which is why it's being sold by a PHONE COMPANY for use with a PHONE COMPANY'S service. Get it? Good. Next. >>> It's a PHONE, goddammit. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > PHONE COMPANY for use with a PHONE COMPANY'S service. Get it? Good. > Next. Ura doesn't care what it is. He just know Steve Jobs told him he can't live without one. So, he can't live without one. >>>> It's a PHONE, goddammit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Ura doesn't care what it is. He just know Steve Jobs told him he can't live >without one. So, he can't live without one. What is he, retarded? >>>>> It's a PHONE, goddammit. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What is he, retarded? He's mactarded. > >No it's NOT, goddammit. Since you are too f.cking dense to know WHAT it > >actually is, maybe it's time you shut the f.ck up! > > Says the lemming. It's a phone, which is why it's being sold by a > PHONE COMPANY for use with a PHONE COMPANY'S service. Get it? Good. > Next. actually tardo, it isnt a phone. its a computer, designed by a computer manufacturer. this computer runs a unix variant for an OS. this computer can decode compressed music, much like another non-phone product called an "iPod". this computer can receive wireless network signals, and its users can surf the web in a common piece of computer software called a "web browser". this computer also comes bundled w/ other applications programmed by its manufacturer. oh, and this computer can make phone calls. sm >>> No it's NOT, goddammit. Since you are too f.cking dense to know WHAT it >>> actually is, maybe it's time you shut the f.ck up! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > sm I assume sm =SeMantics Everything is a computer these days. > I assume sm =SeMantics nope, its my email abbreviation. > Everything is a computer these days. do they all run unix? full web browsers, w/ javascript parsers? sm > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:12:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > until you actually have real life experience with the thing, or is > your life *THAT* empty??? The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware developers, etc. to write software on it that runs on the "bare metal" of the phone. This hardware has a hell of a lot of potential, but if Apple decides "no SDK", then it's little more than a pretty device, and at the price it's being sold at, I expect more than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released for it. Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing which is bound to piss people off. >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:12:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >wouldn't buy it until an SDK is >released for it. FINALLY!!! Someone with some common sense in this group! At least you haven't drunk the Kool-aid without finding out what's in it yet. > Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing >which is bound to piss >people off. Ya' think??? ;-) >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:12:52 -0700, Michelle Steiner >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> until you actually have real life experience with the thing, or is >> your life *THAT* empty??? > The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef > I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > price it's being sold at, I expect more than a souped up V-cast style > "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released for it. Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at. Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because it integrates a decent phone with a media player. Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to be seen how much effect being very late to market will have. > Also, it appears "Meg" is Astroturfing > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing Just mindlessly w.nking. > which is bound to piss people off. > > The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef > > I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to be > seen how much effect being very late to market will have. I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market. True, some other devices that combine these capabilities have existed for some years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone mainstream. Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state. [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 > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest beef >>> I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, freeware [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. Personaly, I wouldn't >>> buy it until an SDK is released for it. >> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at. >> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because >> it integrates a decent phone with a media player. >> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to >> be seen how much effect being very late to market will have. > I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market. More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally. > True, some other devices that combine these capabilities have existed for some > years. But the market for them has never really taken off and gone mainstream. Yes, and it wont now, you watch. Most want a much cheaper phone that combines phone, media player, camera etc capability. And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too. > Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state. Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that regard. And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now and most of those already have a media player now too if they use one much. Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already. Yes. I'm happy with my Sammy 'Sync' 3.5G (tethered 350 kbps up & down), 2 Gig MP3 / WMA player w Bluetooth stereo headset, $125 on eBay. Who NEEDS an iPhone? Not me. SoCalCommie "The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war." - Sidney J. Harris > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > most of those already have a media player now too if they use one much. > Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already. > "The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the > patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist > is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude > creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of > blind arrogance that leads to war." - Sidney J. Harris And the nationalist proclaims himself to be a "True Patriot", and everyone who disagrees with him to be a traitor. "My country, right or wrong: if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Senator Carl Schurz of Missouri, 1899 As true today as it was then. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Most want a much cheaper phone that combines phone, media player, > camera etc capability. It might take a couple of years and a couple of price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen. The iPhone probably won't end up quite as dominant as the iPod, because its attachment to a single network (at least in the US) will cause some people to look elsewhere, but it's going to be a major factor. > And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly want a real > keyboard, not a touchscreen one too. Doubt it. Remember, this is a smart phone primarily for the iPod demographic, not for business types who mostly use the device for e-mail. And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work just as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent keys on a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were trying to hit. If you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can probably figure out where the center of your finger was and recover. Plus there's the auto correction feature. Plus, with an on-screen input device, you can customize things for every app. For instance, the on-screen keyboard that comes up when you type in the URL field of Safari actually has a single key you get hit to insert ".com". > > Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar > > state. > > Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media > player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that > regard. And the iPhone has just about the best designed UI I've ever seen on an actual product that's actually available to the public. Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good. > And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at > the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already has a > cellphone now and most of those already have a media player now too > if they use one much. Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera > combined already. However, most of those people don't use the media player functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead. The market has shown that it greatly values iPods over other media players. I would expect it would greatly value an iPod phone over other media player phones, for all the same reasons. Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years anyway. And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared with the cost of an iPod + a phone. (If you restrict your choice of phone to one of the few others with a decent web browser, anyway.) 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 > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> The iPhone looks like a nice peice of equipment, but the biggest >>>>> beef I have with it is a lack of an SDK for 3rd party companies, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>> expect more than a souped up V-cast style "teenybopper" phone. >>>>> Personaly, I wouldn't buy it until an SDK is released for it. >>>> Me neither, but I realise I'm nothing like who its aimed at. >>>> Bet it will do as well as the ipod did, just because >>>> it integrates a decent phone with a media player. >>>> Tho plenty will already have one of those, so it remains to >>>> be seen how much effect being very late to market will have. >>> I wouldn't consider Apple to be "very late" to this market. >> More fool you. High end phones with all sorts of extra capability >> have been around for a hell of a long time now, years, literally. >>> True, some other devices that combine these capabilities >>> have existed for some years. But the market for them has >>> never really taken off and gone mainstream. >> Yes, and it wont now, you watch. >> Most want a much cheaper phone that combines phone, >> media player, camera etc capability. > It might take a couple of years and a couple of > price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen. I doubt it with market penetration, essentially because a phone is much more locked to the telco than a media player ever is and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones. > The iPhone probably won't end up quite as dominant as the iPod, Nothing like it in fact, if only because so many want a dirt cheap phone instead. The phone market is VERY different to the media player market. > because its attachment to a single network (at least > in the US) will cause some people to look elsewhere, And because even if the network is acceptible, the calls plan may not be. > but it's going to be a major factor. I doubt it, if only because its so late to market. Everyone who wants a high end phone already has one and its unlikely to be their first high end phone either. >> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly >> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too. > Doubt it. Have a look at the high end phones. > Remember, this is a smart phone primarily for the iPod demographic, If thats so, they're f.cked because so many already have a phone and media player and camera combined. Very late to market with theirs again. > not for business types who mostly use the device for e-mail. Sure, its not going to appeal to too many of those, just because it has no keyboard. > And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work > just as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent > keys on a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were > trying to hit. If you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can > probably figure out where the center of your finger was and recover. That doesnt really happen enough to matter much. The problem is more that the screen is filled with the touchscreen keyboard on those tiny screens and so you cant read the email you are replying too at the same time. Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street and town name and you get to select from a list once you have typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that. > Plus there's the auto correction feature. Sure. > Plus, with an on-screen input device, you can customize things > for every app. For instance, the on-screen keyboard that comes > up when you type in the URL field of Safari actually has a single > key you get hit to insert ".com". Sure, it would be fine for browsing, just not for emails. And anyone with a clue uses favourites with browsing anyway and a touchscreen does those even better than a physical keyboard. >>> Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state. >> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media >> player and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that regard. > And the iPhone has just about the best designed UI I've ever > seen on an actual product that's actually available to the public. Sure, but it remains to be seen what they have done about back in the computer. If its anything like the iPod there, its pretty primitive back in the computer. > Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good. My main reservation is with the the two finger approach, cant see that being too viable in a phone where you mostly hold it in one hand and use the other on the screen. Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho. >> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at >> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already >> has a cellphone now and most of those already have a media >> player now too if they use one much. Hordes of them have a >> media player/phone/camera combined already. > However, most of those people don't use the media player > functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead. That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player. > The market has shown that it greatly values iPods over other media players. Yes, but its different when the phone is also a media player as most are now. > I would expect it would greatly value an iPod phone over > other media player phones, for all the same reasons. Maybe, but the problem Apple has is that they already have those media player phones because Apple is so late to market with theirs and its locked to AT&T too. > Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years anyway. Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see too many change platform completely. Thats what f.cked the Mac. > And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared > with the cost of an iPod + a phone. Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones. > (If you restrict your choice of phone to one of the > few others with a decent web browser, anyway.) There's plenty with that capability now, with media player and camera and often GPS as well. > > It might take a couple of years and a couple of > > price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint > just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones. The major carriers in the US are all fairly competitive on price. AT&T isn't at a particular disadvantage there. [snip] > >> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly > >> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too. > > > Doubt it. > > Have a look at the high end phones. Um. Well, yes, if you assume that people want what existing phones offer, and not what the iPhone offers, then of course the iPhone won't amount to much. But since the issue we're discussing is, basically, whether people want the iPhone, assuming at the start that they don't isn't a valid thing to do. [snip] > Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street > and town name and you get to select from a list once you have > typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that. OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for the iPhone. The media player function is, and to a lesser extent probably the mapping and web browsing functions. Not to mention just the slick all-around UI, for everything from SMS to contact management to conference calling. All of these benefit from the fact that almost the entire face of the device is covered with a screen, instead of half of if being taken up by a physical keyboard. [snip] > > Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho. The two-finger stuff is mostly used for resizing images and such, using a pinching motion with the thumb and index finger of the same had. So, it's fine one-handed. > >> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at > >> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player. Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a music player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it. And even if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media player that didn't sync with iTunes automatically, since that's where they probably have their music. [snip] > > Plus, people replace their phone and media player every couple of years > > anyway. > > Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see > too many change platform completely. Thats what f.cked the Mac. Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though. Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an iPhone isn't nearly like switching from Windows to the Mac. The vast majority of users have no third-party applications at all and no data beyond contact information and photos, all of which can be ported over (well, if their current phone can sync it to a computer at all). > > And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared > > with the cost of an iPod + a phone. > > Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media > player phones. The market has clearly expressed that "media player" does not equal "iPod". I suppose we could compare it to all the other iPod phones. After Apple makes more models. <g> [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 > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> It might take a couple of years and a couple of >>> price cuts. It did for the iPod. But it will happen. >> I doubt it with market penetration, essentially because a phone >> is much more locked to the telco than a media player ever is >> and most care about what their phone plan is costing them, it aint >> just the sticker price on the hardware that matters with phones. > The major carriers in the US are all fairly competitive on price. Not necessarily on what they offer with a particular phone tho. > AT&T isn't at a particular disadvantage there. Some dont get effective coverage from them tho. You dont get that effect with media players. >>>> And those who want to be able to do email etc mostly >>>> want a real keyboard, not a touchscreen one too. >>> Doubt it. >> Have a look at the high end phones. > Um. Well, yes, if you assume that people want what > existing phones offer, and not what the iPhone offers, Wasnt doing that, just looking at what the manufacturers of those phones have researched what the buyers want feature wise. > then of course the iPhone won't amount to much. But since the issue > we're discussing is, basically, whether people want the iPhone, That wasnt what was being discussed in this sub thread. > assuming at the start that they don't isn't a valid thing to do. Pity I never did that. >>> And it's not clear to me that the on-screen keyboard doesn't work >>> just as well as a physical keyboard. If you mash a couple of adjacent >>> keys on a physical keyboard, it has no idea which one you were >>> trying to hit. If you do the same on touch-screen keyboard, it can >>> probably figure out where the center of your finger was and recover. >> That doesnt really happen enough to matter much. >> The problem is more that the screen is filled with the >> touchscreen keyboard on those tiny screens and so you >> cant read the email you are replying too at the same time. >> Doesnt matter with a GPS where you are only entering a street >> and town name and you get to select from a list once you have >> typed a couple of letters, but email cant be done like that. > OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for the iPhone. There is no "killer app" for the iPhone, there are hordes of phones with media players and cameras that have been around for years now. > The media player function is, Nope, because that wont kill a damned thing given that there are hordes of phones with media players and cameras that have been around for years now. > and to a lesser extent probably the mapping and web browsing functions. More everything in the one device, mapping, browsing, email, camera, media player etc. And thats where the iphone may well fail, when you cant run Quicken etc on it etc. > Not to mention just the slick all-around UI, for everything > from SMS to contact management to conference calling. Sure, but the UI on most phones is already quite adequate in those areas. > All of these benefit from the fact that almost the entire > face of the device is covered with a screen, instead of > half of if being taken up by a physical keyboard. There's plenty of other phones like that now. >>> Even most unlikely concept product UI demos one sees don't look as good. >> My main reservation is with the the two finger approach, >> cant see that being too viable in a phone where you mostly >> hold it in one hand and use the other on the screen. >> Maybe you wont do the two finger stuff enough to matter tho. > The two-finger stuff is mostly used for resizing images > and such, using a pinching motion with the thumb and > index finger of the same had. So, it's fine one-handed. Maybe. >>>> And virtually everyone didnt already have a media player at >>>> the time that the ipod showed up. Virtually everyone already >>>> has a cellphone now and most of those already have a media >>>> player now too if they use one much. Hordes of them have a >>>> media player/phone/camera combined already. >>> However, most of those people don't use the media player >>> functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead. >> That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player. > Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a > music player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it. Oh bullshit. > And even if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media > player that didn't sync with iTunes automatically, since > that's where they probably have their music. Pity about the convenience of both in the one device. You're completely off with the fairys on this one. >>> Plus, people replace their phone and media >>> player every couple of years anyway. >> Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see >> too many change platform completely. Thats what f.cked the Mac. > Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though. You just said they do with your iTunes comment above. > Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an > iPhone isn't nearly like switching from Windows to the Mac. In some ways its worse because the UI is so different between a Motorola and a Nokia for example. > The vast majority of users have no third-party applications at all Correct. But plenty do on their high end phones, particularly stuff like TomTom 6 and Quicken etc. > and no data beyond contact information and photos, all of which can be > ported over (well, if their current phone can sync it to a computer at all). It remains to be seen how bullet proof that is with the iphone. Bet it turns out to be the area with by far the most problems. >>> And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared with the cost of an iPod + a phone. >> Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones. > The market has clearly expressed that "media player" does not equal "iPod". Not with combined media players and phones it hasnt. > I suppose we could compare it to all the other iPod phones. Nope. > After Apple makes more models. <g> Even later to market. Bet its too late and they never do as well as the ipod did. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > >> Have a look at the high end phones. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wasnt doing that, just looking at what the manufacturers of those > phones have researched what the buyers want feature wise. IOW, you're assuming current phones get it right and the iPhone gets it wrong. [snip] > > OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for the > > iPhone. > > There is no "killer app" for the iPhone, there are hordes of phones > with media players and cameras that have been around for years now. OK, this shows that you've seriously missed the point. [snip] > > Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a > > music player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it. > > Oh bullshit. Just posted elsewhere: http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/local/chi-sun_iphone_0624jun24,1 ,751030.story?page=2&coll=chi-technologylocal-hed ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motorola and other phonemakers have been stuffing their wares with Web-browsing and music- and video-playing capabilities. But U.S. consumers still don't seem to choose their phones based on such features. "I don't think many people go out and buy a phone and say, 'I'm going for the music part of it, I'm going for the video part of it,'" said Neil Strother, a wireless industry analyst at Jupiter Research. But if the iPhone succeeds, such multimedia phones should really take root, spurring more innovation, too, at established phonemakers, he said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And even if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media > > player that didn't sync with iTunes automatically, since > > that's where they probably have their music. > > Pity about the convenience of both in the one device. Yes, which is exactly what will sell iPhones. If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do), and you want phone features in the same device, the iPhone is your only option. > >> Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see > >> too many change platform completely. Thats what f.cked the Mac. > > > Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though. > > You just said they do with your iTunes comment above. I was discussing how many people had iPods in addition to "music player" phones because they wanted iPods as opposed to generic "music player" functionality. This implies that people use the platform concept with respect to music players, which I think is clearly the case. It doesn't imply they do with respect to phones. With the except of the small fraction of people who buy Treo and Windows Mobile devices, the platform concept is nearly meaningless in the mobile phone market. > > Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an > > iPhone isn't nearly like switching from Windows to the Mac. > > In some ways its worse because the UI is so different > between a Motorola and a Nokia for example. People are almost certainly going to have an easier time using an iPhone than their current phone. The iPhone is designed so much better than other phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity. Most people barely know how to use their phones to begin with. > > The vast majority of users have no third-party applications at all > > Correct. But plenty do on their high end phones, > particularly stuff like TomTom 6 and Quicken etc. "Plenty" being probably 1% of the overall market. Again, this isn't necessarily a phone designed for people who already buy high-priced smart phones. It's a phone designed for people who buy *iPods*. > > and no data beyond contact information and photos, all of which can be > > ported over (well, if their current phone can sync it to a computer at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bet it turns out to be the area with by far the most problems. Why? Apple has lots of experience with this. The iPhone uses an updated version of the iPod syncing mechanism, and iSync on OS X has been syncing with non-Apple phones for years. [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 > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Have a look at the high end phones. >>> Um. Well, yes, if you assume that people want what >>> existing phones offer, and not what the iPhone offers, >> Wasnt doing that, just looking at what the manufacturers of those >> phones have researched what the buyers want feature wise. > IOW, you're assuming current phones get it right and the iPhone gets it wrong. Nope. Just that its a tad unlikely that those manufacturers who included a full physical keyboard didnt do that for a reason and that Apple may well have decided that the iPhone wont be used for email much and so it doesnt matter if its got a much more limited touch screen keyboard instead. >>> OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for the iPhone. >> There is no "killer app" for the iPhone, there are hordes of phones >> with media players and cameras that have been around for years now. > OK, this shows that you've seriously missed the point. Nope, you have. >>> Not in my experience, it's not. Many phones sold these days have a >>> music player function. Most users don't even know their phone has it. >> Oh bullshit. > Just posted elsewhere: > http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/local/chi-sun_iphone_0624jun24,1 > ,751030.story?page=2&coll=chi-technologylocal-hed > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Motorola and other phonemakers have been stuffing their wares with > Web-browsing and music- and video-playing capabilities. But U.S. > consumers still don't seem to choose their phones based on such features. Separate matter entirely to your claim above. > "I don't think many people go out and buy a phone and say, 'I'm going > for the music part of it, I'm going for the video part of it,'" said > Neil Strother, a wireless industry analyst at Jupiter Research. Nothing like your silly claim above. > But if the iPhone succeeds, such multimedia phones should really take > root, spurring more innovation, too, at established phonemakers, he said. That might well happen with the touch screen UI, but its already happened YEARS ago now with media players and cameras etc, LONG before the iPhone ever showed up. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> And even if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media >>> player that didn't sync with iTunes automatically, since >>> that's where they probably have their music. >> Pity about the convenience of both in the one device. >> You're completely off with the fairys on this one. >>> And even if they did, they wouldn't want to use a media >>> player that didn't sync with iTunes automatically, since >>> that's where they probably have their music. >> Pity about the convenience of both in the one device. > Yes, which is exactly what will sell iPhones. Nope, there are f.ck all silly enough to have both a phone thats a media player and an ipod. > If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do), No they dont. In spades with those who have a media player in their phone. > and you want phone features in the same device, the iPhone is your only option. No it isnt. >>>> Sure, thats certainly one thing in Apple's favour, but you dont see >>>> too many change platform completely. Thats what f.cked the Mac. >>> Most people don't really think of mobile phones as "platforms", though. >> You just said they do with your iTunes comment above. > I was discussing how many people had iPods in addition > to "music player" phones because they wanted iPods as > opposed to generic "music player" functionality. That wasnt your iTunes comment. > This implies that people use the platform concept with respect to music players, > which I think is clearly the case. It doesn't imply they do with respect to phones. They do anyway, just because of the radical differences in how the menus are structured etc. There's plenty that choose to stick with Nokia's just because their menus etc are much more intuitive than say with Motorola and LG in spades. > With the except of the small fraction of people who buy > Treo and Windows Mobile devices, the platform concept > is nearly meaningless in the mobile phone market. Not with the UI it aint. >>> Switching from a Motorola phone (or whatever) to an >>> iPhone isn't nearly like switching from Windows to the Mac. >> In some ways its worse because the UI is so different >> between a Motorola and a Nokia for example. > People are almost certainly going to have an easier > time using an iPhone than their current phone. We'll see with Nokias particularly. > The iPhone is designed so much better than other > phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity. Easy to claim. It remains to be seen how valid that claim actually is. > Most people barely know how to use their phones to begin with. Most can use it for what they bought it for. >>> The vast majority of users have no third-party applications at all >> Correct. But plenty do on their high end phones, >> particularly stuff like TomTom 6 and Quicken etc. > "Plenty" being probably 1% of the overall market. Thats why I said 'correct' > Again, this isn't necessarily a phone designed for > people who already buy high-priced smart phones. > It's a phone designed for people who buy *iPods*. Pity so many buy phones with media players and cameras too. >>> and no data beyond contact information and photos, all of which can be >>> ported over (well, if their current phone can sync it to a computer at all). >> It remains to be seen how bullet proof that is with the iphone. >> Bet it turns out to be the area with by far the most problems. > Why? Because thats always a major problem when changing phones except with the real dinosaurs that have everything in the sim. > Apple has lots of experience with this. > The iPhone uses an updated version of the iPod syncing mechanism, > and iSync on OS X has been syncing with non-Apple phones for years. And is still the area where most have the most problems. [snip] You're responding to individual sentences rather than to my actual points, and trying to start arguments about who said what to distract from the actual discussion. We get enough of that sort of thing from our resident CSMA trolls. I don't really have the patience for it. > > This implies that people use the platform concept with respect to > > music players, which I think is clearly the case. It doesn't imply [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Not with the UI it aint. I haven't gotten the impression most people are particularly attached to their user interfaces. In fact, most people seem to hate the UI of current phones. [snip] > > Apple has lots of experience with this. > > > The iPhone uses an updated version of the iPod syncing mechanism, > > and iSync on OS X has been syncing with non-Apple phones for years. > > And is still the area where most have the most problems. OK, but the problems you're talking about here are problems with *any* phone switch. They have nothing to do with the iPhone in particular. Most people, as far as I've seen, just end up manually re-entering their contact information anyway. 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 > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > You're responding to individual sentences rather than to my actual points, Nope. > and trying to start arguments about who said what to distract from the actual discussion. Nope. > We get enough of that sort of thing from our resident CSMA trolls. Just how many of you are there between those ears ? > I don't really have the patience for it. Your problem. What you really dont have the patience for is having your nose rubbed in your stupiditys. >>> This implies that people use the platform concept with >>> respect to music players, which I think is clearly the >>> case. It doesn't imply they do with respect to phones. >> They do anyway, just because of the radical >> differences in how the menus are structured etc. >> There's plenty that choose to stick with Nokias just because their menus >> etc are much more intuitive than say with Motorola and LG in spades. >>> With the except of the small fraction of people who buy >>> Treo and Windows Mobile devices, the platform concept >>> is nearly meaningless in the mobile phone market. >> Not with the UI it aint. > I haven't gotten the impression most people are > particularly attached to their user interfaces. You need to get out more. > In fact, most people seem to hate the UI of current phones. Most dont with Nokias. And you dont know that they will lover the iPhone UI either, particularly the rather f.cked scrolling around when you're using decent legible fonts. >>> Apple has lots of experience with this. >>> The iPhone uses an updated version of the iPod syncing mechanism, >>> and iSync on OS X has been syncing with non-Apple phones for years. >> And is still the area where most have the most problems. > OK, but the problems you're talking about > here are problems with *any* phone switch. Nope, not when you stick with the same manufacturer. > They have nothing to do with the iPhone in particular. Corse they do when its their first. > Most people, as far as I've seen, just end up manually > re-entering their contact information anyway. Only the fools. > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nope. OK, so we're done here. [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 > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> You're responding to individual sentences rather than to my actual points, >> Nope. >>> and trying to start arguments about who said what to distract from the actual discussion. >> Nope. > OK, so we're done here. You've always been done, like a dinner. > Nope, there are f.ck all silly enough to have > both a phone thats a media player and an ipod. rubbish. people arent going to give up their itunes playlists and easy- as-pie syncing, just to use their latest random cellphone's media player. it makes far more sense to stick to what ya know, and keep using your managed itunes system. cell phone makers have shown they arent very good at making media players that people care about. and certainly never one people would abandon itunes in favor of. why learn a whole new system when you have one that works very well? > > If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do), > > No they dont. but they do. see ipod sales. its about the UI, the syncing, and the style. ipod != "random media player" > > The iPhone is designed so much better than other > > phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity. > > Easy to claim. It remains to be seen how valid that claim actually is. the track record is in apples favor, here. see Mac, and iPod. they would appear to know how to "do" design. popular design. pay-a-premium design (tho now of course, due to immense popularity & mass production, ipods are down to trinket cost). > > Most people barely know how to use their phones to begin with. > > Most can use it for what they bought it for. ...which has historically been talking. but for people looking to consolidate devices, which is who i believe the iphone is marketed to, then "what they bought it for" becomes talking, media, internet. > > It's a phone designed for people who buy *iPods*. > > Pity so many buy phones with media players and cameras too. pfft. media players & cameras are bundled trinkets in today's cellphones. the majority of everyday phones w/ them are not purchased due to their inclusion; these phones were bought (or promo-ed) for talking. not so w/ iPhone. sm > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Nope, there are f.ck all silly enough to have >> both a phone thats a media player and an ipod. > rubbish. people arent going to give up their itunes playlists and easy- > as-pie syncing, just to use their latest random cellphone's media player. There's plenty that do playlists too, in fact almost all of them do. Plenty that are just as easy to synch too. > it makes far more sense to stick to what ya know, > and keep using your managed itunes system. There's f.ck all likely to piss $5/600+ and a 2 year $50/90 per month against the wall on an iphone just for that. And plenty dont even like iTunes too. > cell phone makers have shown they arent very good > at making media players that people care about. Easy to claim... > and certainly never one people would abandon itunes in favor of. Easy to claim... > why learn a whole new system when you have one that works very well? Why piss $5/600+ and a 2 year $50/90 per month against the wall on an iphone just to keep that ? And end with a rather shitty camera, a completely f.cked cellphone network, no way to run 3rd party apps, no removable battery, no sim, etc etc etc. >>> If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do), >> No they dont. > but they do. see ipod sales. See the sales of all those phones with media players and non ipod media players. > its about the UI, the syncing, and the style. ipod != "random media player" |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message