Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!
Oxford
iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
downfall!
Wow!
We all knew this would happen sooner or later, but Germany's poorly
managed Vodafone unit has gone to court to stop Cell Phone advancements
in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
so are seeking court relief before they go under.
This will be good for everyone!
DUESSELDORF - The German unit of Vodafone Group PLC (VOD) has obtained a
restraining order against Deutsche Telekom AG's (DT) T-Mobile unit
prohibiting the German telecommunications giant from selling Apple
Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone in Germany.
The restraining order was issued by a regional court in Hamburg Monday,
a Vodafone Deutschland spokesman told Dow Jones Newswires.
Vodafone is questioning Deutsche Telekom's iPhone sales practices, the
spokesman said. Deutsche Telekom is marketing the iPhone exclusively in
Germany.
Specifically, Vodafone is questioning the iPhone's exclusive use in
T-Mobile's network and the use of the device being limited to certain
fees within T- Mobile's subscription offerings.
Vodafone isn't generally opposed to T-Mobile's exclusivity contract with
Apple, but wants to have these new sales practices examined, the
spokesman said. The restraining order doesn't aim at a total sales stop,
he added.
A spokesman for T-Mobile Monday confirmed the restraining order has been
issued, adding that the company is examining the issue. So far, it is
too early to comment on possible consequences for the company, he said.
(for the clueless that don't understand I most always post a link)
-
Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other Cell
Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the handset
market, Apple is just too experienced in building high quality small
devices...
WE ALL know that. Learn a better way, don't try and fight the old guard.
Move up in the world!
-
CozmicDebris
874348.170...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
> -
>
> Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other Cell
> Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the handset
> market,
Yo stupid- Apple is not a cell carrier.
>
DTC
>> Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the handset
>> market,
>
>
> Yo stupid- Apple is not a cell carrier.
Watch,...Oxford is gonna reply with a terse: "Not yet!"
Ness-Net
He just doesn't get it, I guess.
Clue: his editorializing is what negates everything he says.
Fanatical fanboy fantasy - decidedly delusional.
It's one thing to post speculation. Then, to top it off, he posts the
most inane and grossly inaccurate 'predictions' (I use the term in jest).
He MAY have gotten by (now and in the past) with just posting
his (trolling) 'info'... (again, using the term loosely). It's the wild,
crazy speculation - always done in the most obnoxious tone possible ,
that makes ALL he posts not only suspect - but downright laughable.
Oxford - rapidly becoming the poster boy of Usenet fanboy lunacy.
Last sentence below... "WE" - you mean YOU (and only you)
"Oxford" <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote in message
news:linuxlovesosx-874...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
Oxford
> >> Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other Cell
> >> Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the handset
> >> market,
> >
> >
> > Yo stupid- Apple is not a cell carrier.
poor cozmic, doesn't even understand that "who wins the iphone contract"
WINS the entire handset market going forward.
SJ is the now KING maker of the cell industry...
vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just watch.
apple is waaaaay tooo powerful for simple little cell providers like
verizon to complain. they are dead in the water unless they give in and
accept apple's rules. they failed once to win the iphone contract.
SJ will crush them until they do.
-
Larry
news:linuxlovesosx-874348.17000319112007@mpls-nnrp-
03.inet.qwest.net:
Larry
--
Xterm IS the ultimate video game...(c;
Jon
> Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote in
> news:linuxlovesosx-874348.17000319112007@mpls-nnrp-
> 03.inet.qwest.net:
>
>> http://snipurl.com/1twwa
>>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yu4w9e
>
> Larry
CozmicDebris
news:linuxlovesosx-030...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> DTC <m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> >> Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other
>> >> Cell Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the
>> >> handset market,
>> >
>> >
>> > Yo stupid- Apple is not a cell carrier.
>
> poor cozmic, doesn't even understand that "who wins the iphone
> contract" WINS the entire handset market going forward.
Then explain why Verizon is now once again signing up more customers than
AT&T.
>
> SJ is the now KING maker of the cell industry...
SJ will be nothing but an afterthought in the cell industry by 2015.
>
> vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
> are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just
> watch.
Vodafone is questioning the sales practices, not the phone, stupid. Laws
in Europe are much different than they are here.
And why would Verizon cry wolf when they are once again signing up more new
customers than AT&T?
Larry
news:linuxlovesosx-0305F8.19081619112007@mpls-nnrp-
03.inet.qwest.net:
> SJ will crush them until they do.
>
I the jailbreak v1.1.2 the latest version out or are the hackers
working on yet another version after this one??
Larry
@registered.motzarella.org:
> Yea i saw that a while ago. Best. Video. EVAR!
>
>
They're a lot cheaper, now, than when he wasted $600 on that one...
(c;
Ness-Net
>
> poor cozmic, doesn't even understand that "who wins the iphone contract"
> WINS the entire handset market going forward.
>
> SJ is the now KING maker of the cell industry...
>
> vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
> are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just watch.
>
> apple is waaaaay tooo powerful for simple little cell providers like
> verizon to complain. they are dead in the water unless they give in and
> accept apple's rules. they failed once to win the iphone contract.
>
> SJ will crush them until they do.
>
> -
Poor Oxford - once an idiot - always an idiot.
More inane predictions - based on ZERO fact.
News
DTC
> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
> downfall!
>
> Wow!
WOW...Talk about reading between the lines and inserting your own
unfounded observations! Or are they someone else's observations and you
forgot to quote them?
> We all knew this would happen sooner or later, but Germany's poorly
> managed Vodafone unit has gone to court to stop Cell Phone advancements
> They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
You know this for a fact? Citation please.
Who is we? Your private fanboi club?
[quoted from article]
> Vodafone is questioning Deutsche Telekom's iPhone sales practices
Ummm...the suit is about business practices. English must be your second
reading language.
CozmicDebris
> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
> downfall!
>
> Wow!
>
> We all knew this would happen sooner or later, but Germany's poorly
> managed Vodafone unit has gone to court to stop Cell Phone advancements
Cell phone advancements? Is T-Mobile selling a real phone? I thought this
was abvout their sales practices for the iPhone? The iPhone is old
technology in the cellular world, except for the interface.
> in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
> so are seeking court relief before they go under.
Go under? Aren't they the largest cell company on the planet?
CozmicDebris
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:
>
> Ummm...the suit is about business practices. English must be your second
> reading language.
No- sadly enough, Oxturd can barely handle a primary language. His parents
would kick him out of the basement forever if he tried to learn a second
one. After all, they have limits on how much stupidity they can tolerate.
Oxford
> >> >> Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other
> >> >> Cell Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the
> >> >> handset market,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yo stupid- Apple is not a cell carrier.
> >
> > poor cozmic, doesn't even understand that "who wins the iphone
> > contract" WINS the entire handset market going forward.
>
> Then explain why Verizon is now once again signing up more customers than
> AT&T.
cite?
> > SJ is the now KING maker of the cell industry...
>
> SJ will be nothing but an afterthought in the cell industry by 2015.
SJ will own the cell market in that amount of time, he gained 72% of the
much more competitive MP3 market in 4 years, so commanding the cell
industry is a piece of cake since there are no strong players.
> > vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
> > are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just
> > watch.
>
> Vodafone is questioning the sales practices, not the phone, stupid. Laws
> in Europe are much different than they are here.
Ah, they are still fearful, sales practices shouldn't matter to a court,
customer demand is what matters and everyone has voted for the iPhone to
be No. 1 worldwide.
> And why would Verizon cry wolf when they are once again signing up more new
> customers than AT&T?
Verizon is dying, they lost the iPhone contract because of their own
bungling, and have been in defensive mode ever since.
If a cell handset maker doesn't win Apple's good graces, they are no
longer a viable company.
-
CozmicDebris
news:linuxlovesosx-71D...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>
> SJ will own the cell market in that amount of time, he gained 72% of
> the much more competitive MP3 market in 4 years,
Huh? There was no mp3 market, you moron. Apple is entering a mature
market here- something that they have little success with.
> so commanding the
> cell industry is a piece of cake since there are no strong players.
>
>> > vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so
>> > they are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf,
>> > just watch.
>>
>> Vodafone is questioning the sales practices, not the phone, stupid.
>> Laws in Europe are much different than they are here.
>
> Ah, they are still fearful, sales practices shouldn't matter to a
> court,
Only on the distant planet of Oxturd. You know it- the one with no
intelligent signs of life on it.
> customer demand is what matters and everyone has voted for the
> iPhone to be No. 1 worldwide.
Hardly, newbie.
>
>> And why would Verizon cry wolf when they are once again signing up
>> more new customers than AT&T?
>
> Verizon is dying, they lost the iPhone contract because of their own
> bungling, and have been in defensive mode ever since.
Dying? Hardly. They are positioned to overtake AT&T as the largest US
carrier WITHOUT the crapphone.
>
> If a cell handset maker doesn't win Apple's good graces, they are no
> longer a viable company.
Nokia, Samsung and LG all say hello.
>
> -
>
Oxford
> > in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
> > so are seeking court relief before they go under.
>
> Go under? Aren't they the largest cell company on the planet?
yes, thanks for proving my point. Vodafone is financially weak and
likely can't survive the advancements of the iPhone in their
non-competitive markets.
SJ tends to calls these firms "squishy".
Now you know.
-
CozmicDebris
news:linuxlovesosx-21C...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> > in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's
>> > pressure, so are seeking court relief before they go under.
>>
>> Go under? Aren't they the largest cell company on the planet?
>
> yes, thanks for proving my point. Vodafone is financially weak and
> likely can't survive the advancements of the iPhone in their
> non-competitive markets.
Cite?
>
> SJ tends to calls these firms "squishy".
I thought that's how he described your attempts to have his baby.
>
> Now you know.
>
That would make one of us knowing something.
ed
<snip>
>> SJ will be nothing but an afterthought in the cell industry by 2015.
>
> SJ will own the cell market in that amount of time, he gained 72% of the
> much more competitive MP3 market in 4 years, so commanding the cell
> industry is a piece of cake since there are no strong players.
hahahhaaaaaaaa! much more competitive mp3 market! how many companies made
mp3s when apple entered, and how many people had mp3 players? compare that
to the cell industry?
<snip>
>> And why would Verizon cry wolf when they are once again signing up more
>> new
>> customers than AT&T?
>
> Verizon is dying, they lost the iPhone contract because of their own
> bungling, and have been in defensive mode ever since.
first, they didn't 'lose' the iphone- they declined it. in the first full
quarter after the iphone was introduced, both verizon and at&t have
reported... verizon added 1.6million customers, almost all postpaid (the
post profitable and desirable kind), to at&t's 2million, of which 1.2million
are postpaid, and verizon's churn was an industry low 1.21% to at&t's 1.7%.
revenue at both companies up 14.4%.
so much for your claime they'd fade quarter by quarter, eh?
> If a cell handset maker doesn't win Apple's good graces, they are no
> longer a viable company.
how do you rectify that statement with vz's financial results?
Jim Lee Jr.
<linuxlovesosx-21C...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> Yes, thanks for proving my point. Vodafone is financially weak and
> likely can't survive the advancements of the iPhone in their
> non-competitive markets.
>
> Steve Jobs tends to calls these firms "squishy".
>
> Now you know.
On a side note, that must mean that Windoze users and Wintrolls are
squishy for not educating themselves on OS alternatives and kowtowing to
Ballmer.
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8
Oxford
> Ummm...the suit is about business practices.
yes, but only under the thin guise of... FUCK! --- the iPhone is selling
far better than we expected. It's eating our business alive, let's sue!
CozmicDebris
Funny- I don't see mention of that ANYWHERE but out of your disabled brain.
Jon
Next year it will be a long forgotten memory, like AppleTV
DTC
> AppleTV
Is THAT still around??
MuahMan
"DTC" <m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote in message
news:FMt0j.23869$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> Jon wrote:
>> AppleTV
>
> Is THAT still around??
There are pallets of dusty Apple TV's for like $99 dollars at Costco. LOL
CozmicDebris
Bo...@YourAss.com:
> In article <Xns99EDAFEBA1...@216.196.97.142>, CozmicDebris
> wrote:
>
>> Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
>> 874348.170...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>> > Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other Cell
>> > Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the handset
>> > market,
>>
>>
>> Yo stupid- Apple is not a cell carrier.
>>
>
>
> Learn to read, moron. He didn't claim they are.
>
If he says that "no other Cell Carrier is going to be able to compete
against Apple in the handset market," he is most certainly stating that
Apple is a cell carrier. If he had said "no cell carrier," you would be
correct.
Learn to read, moron.
Snit
Xns99EDE7AD8B...@216.196.97.142 on 11/19/07 10:46 PM:
Your interpretation is flawed. Ironic given your tone.
Hint: if he believes Apple will *become* a cell carrier that does not mean
he thinks they *are* one now.
Funny how you share similar reading comprehension challenges with someone
else in your neck of the woods - and then lash out at others when your
errors are pointed out. No relation between you two though... right? :)
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Jon
MuahMan
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C367C49A.9A3A2%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Oxford's thousand newsgroup spam, what a shocker! And no, I won't show you
where you defended him. So keep your retard circus to the other fucking
imbecile mactards.
We really have got to find a way to euthanize all Mac users. They are all
big-government liberals anyway.
MuahMan
"Jon" <J...@Cebridge.net> wrote in message
news:fhujod$uj1$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
It simply can't be. Oxtard said it was poised to take over the world and put
all the Cable companies out of business by 2010.
MuahMan
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-01CF63....@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> In article <puqdnZEceomfQt_a...@comcast.com>,
> "MuahMan" <mua...@cumcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Awwwww, look at the Mactards sticking up for one another. Snit defending
>> Oxford's thousand newsgroup spam, what a shocker!
>
> right--always have.
>
> Snit is another one of Oxtard's personalities that he uses online. He
> uses quite a few, and they talk to one another.
>
> That's why you see "Snit" defending "Oxford".
>
Certainly plausible as they are both equally retarded.
Mitch
<linuxlovesosx-874...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> Gosh people! just get an iPhone and get on with life... no other Cell
> Carrier is going to be able to compete against Apple in the handset
> market, Apple is just too experienced in building high quality small
> devices...
You're an idiot.
Apple is not more experienced than all companies at building small
devices, nor are they best in every way.
Cell _carriers_ are not competing against Apple, you fool. The carriers
are competing against other carriers, and Apple makes a handset.
> WE ALL know that. Learn a better way, don't try and fight the old guard.
Apple is not the 'old guard' you moron.
But either way, the sentiment is STUPID. It is always important to
fight the old guard when the old guard is serving you badly or corrupt.
> Move up in the world!
Buying an iPhone does not move you up in the world.
Fighting the 'old guard' does not move you up in the world.
Being a consumer of a popular device does not move you up in the world.
And, note this --
dumping hugely inappropriate messages all over every group you care to
infect, full of lies and misleading facts, full of broad claims and
stupidity, certainly does NOT move Oxford up in the world!
Mitch
<linuxlovesosx-030...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> poor cozmic, doesn't even understand that "who wins the iphone contract"
> WINS the entire handset market going forward.
Huh?
You might believe the iPhone is hugely important, but it is obvious to
everyone else that neither of these is true:
serving the iPhone service contract is not the same as the handset
hardware market
the iPhone is certainly not most of the handset market in any view of
the future
> SJ is the now KING maker of the cell industry...
No, he isn't. His product is worth bidding on, and nothing more.
It is just your delusions that claim the iPhone is so significant that
carriers must serve it or die.
> vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
> are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just watch.
Are you aware that these companies probably sue each other over similar
practices pretty often? The iPhone is merely visible to the consumer,
these cases may not be important at all.
> apple is waaaaay tooo powerful for simple little cell providers like
> verizon to complain. they are dead in the water unless they give in and
> accept apple's rules. they failed once to win the iphone contract.
Not even your own fantasies about iPhone's importance suggest any of
that. You've really gone around the bend.
They offer one handset which is in high demand. It doesn't make Apple
more powerful than the carriers in their own field.
Obviously, carriers are going to do just fine if they don't sell
Apple's handset.
> SJ will crush them until they do.
Wrong -- he will offer the handset to the competition. That's the full
extent of his 'power.' He won't even ASK another carrier to comply with
iPhone techs, because he is precluded from it until the exclusivity is
gone.
God, Oxford, get a clue -- you are deluded by your fantasies about
iPhone. They make you look and sound like a MORON.
Snit
puqdnZEceomfQt_a...@comcast.com on 11/20/07 6:19 AM:
> Awwwww, look at the Mactards sticking up for one another. Snit defending
> Oxford's thousand newsgroup spam, what a shocker! And no, I won't show you
> where you defended him. So keep your retard circus to the other fucking
> imbecile mactards.
>
> We really have got to find a way to euthanize all Mac users. They are all
> big-government liberals anyway.
>
Please note that I never said I agreed with Oxford... I am merely noting
that if one is going to debate against his claims they should use *his*
claims in the rebuttal - not weaker straw men.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Edmund Burke
Steve Carroll
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <el...@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <puqdnZEceomfQt_a...@comcast.com>,
> "MuahMan" <mua...@cumcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Awwwww, look at the Mactards sticking up for one another. Snit defending
> > Oxford's thousand newsgroup spam, what a shocker!
>
> dude, many of us Macintosh users are slamming Oxtard left and
> right--always have.
>
> Snit is another one of Oxtard's personalities that he uses online. He
> uses quite a few, and they talk to one another.
>
> That's why you see "Snit" defending "Oxford".
Wouldn't surprise me a bit.
Ness-Net
> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
> downfall!
>
> Wow!
>
> We all knew this would happen sooner or later, but Germany's poorly
> managed Vodafone unit has gone to court to stop Cell Phone advancements
> so are seeking court relief before they go under.
>
>
Here is the REAL facts...
Vodafone did not ask the court to stop T-Mobile from selling the iPhone,
Gordon said.
Vodafone would like to see a court eventually mandate that T-Mobile sell an
unlocked
version of the iPhone for the same or less as today's locked version, he
said.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139798/vodafone_protests_tmobile_iphone_sales.html
I don't think I've ever seen someone (Oxford) more consistently full of
shit.
Oxford
> Here is the REAL facts...
>
> Vodafone did not ask the court to stop T-Mobile from selling the iPhone,
> Gordon said.
> Vodafone would like to see a court eventually mandate that T-Mobile sell an
> unlocked
> version of the iPhone for the same or less as today's locked version, he
> said.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139798/vodafone_protests_tmobile
> _iphone_sales.html
>
> I don't think I've ever seen someone (Oxford) more consistently full of
> shit.
Yes, but from a LEGAL perspective Vodafone is TERRIFIED of losing
customers to the iPhone, so they are trying to open up holes so they can
obtain revenue from the iPhone without committing to the future.
No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact. Apple has too many patents on the future, so
everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
These are the facts... cell carriers and handset makers must face.
Do a great deal with Apple to carry the iPhone, or disappear.
Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
-
Oxford
> > SJ will own the cell market in that amount of time, he gained 72% of
> > the much more competitive MP3 market in 4 years,
>
> Huh? There was no mp3 market, you moron. Apple is entering a mature
> market here- something that they have little success with.
sure there was, the MP3 market was just as obsolete as the Cell market
at the time. Apple came in with a much better product priced at $399,
and then ended up with 72% of the market based on QUALITY.
The exact same thing is happening in the Cell Market, but only faster.
Apple has come quicker onto the scene with their great reputation in
building small, perfect devices. Apple sells 139,000 ipods every 24
hours, the triple that amount will be sold of iPhone within 18 months,
learn to deal with the new KING of Cell Phones.
You have no other choice...
> > Verizon is dying, they lost the iPhone contract because of their own
> > bungling, and have been in defensive mode ever since.
>
> Dying? Hardly. They are positioned to overtake AT&T as the largest US
> carrier WITHOUT the crapphone.
Verizon is fading away faster than you can say "Diamond Rio", the public
has caught on that Verizon is very expensive, very poor support and
doesn't have the top product, the iPhone.
Expect Verizon to be bought out within 6 years. They are just a
marketing firm for the poorly educated.
> > If a cell handset maker doesn't win Apple's good graces, they are no
> > longer a viable company.
>
> Nokia, Samsung and LG all say hello.
But none of them can build a great product. Look at the LG Voyager! What
is this 1999? That product is so far behind the iPhone it makes Korea
look like Bangladesh.
The iPhone will have massive market share, 30% or more in the coming
years.
Nobody can compete at this level, they just don't have the background,
or manufacturing talent to build small, highly engineered devices like
Apple does.
-
David Friedman
<linuxlovesosx-2D1...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact.
Nonsense.
Different people use cell phones for different purposes; quite a lot of
people use them simply as phones. For that purpose something
considerably smaller, lighter cheaper and simpler makes a lot more sense
than the iPhone.
Some people use them to connect to the internet. Whatever you may think
is going to happen, at present open WiFi networks are not available in
most places, at least in my experience. Under those circumstances, a 3G
phone provides a better connection, especially for tethering, than the
iPhone.
I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
not for most.
> Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
something interesting.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
News
Oxford wrote:
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
Fish or cut bait, Oxie-moron.
When did you naked short the wireless telcos and handset makers?
Oxford
> I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> not for most.
>
> > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
>
> This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> something interesting.
great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
slightest tip of the product iceberg.
Apple has 20-30 designs on their 3D imager right now and is fine tuning
them as we speak to match the larger Cell Market. You'll see 8 to 12 new
models of iPhones within 36 months.
That's just how Apple operates... always bettering themselves since
there is no outside competition.
So, don't focus on the great first iPhone and say it's the last.
Simply look at the Monochrome 5GB iPod sold at $399 in 2001, then look
at the iPod Nano 8GB sold today in Walmarts across the world.
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/
Apple has only opened up 7 outlets for the iPhone, and it's been a
massive success. 90x times more popular than the original iPod!
The iPod now sells at upwards of 47,000 locations...
The iPhone will follow the same successful path.
-
PCs Rule
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>> I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
>> some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
>> not for most.
>>
>> > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
>> > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
>>
>> This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
>> you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
>> think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
>> their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
>> something interesting.
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.
>
> Apple has 20-30 designs on their 3D imager right now and is fine tuning
> them as we speak to match the larger Cell Market. You'll see 8 to 12 new
> models of iPhones within 36 months.
>
Sure, a new one every three months. That will really get the customers to
love the company. Get your head out of Apple's ass.
Ness-Net
>
> Yes, but from a LEGAL perspective Vodafone is TERRIFIED of losing
> customers to the iPhone, so they are trying to open up holes so they can
> obtain revenue from the iPhone without committing to the future.
>
> No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact. Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
>
> These are the facts... cell carriers and handset makers must face.
>
> Do a great deal with Apple to carry the iPhone, or disappear.
>
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
>
> -
>
Nope, sorry. Not even a moderately good attempt at spin.
Wrong on ALL counts. Sorry fanatic fanboy.
Since Oxford's pathetic spin is ALL complete CRAP - no point
in my refuting it line by line.
Just more of the same, lame fiction.
Ness-Net
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-F204B6.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
(That and the complete disregard for any facts whatsoever)
Oxford
> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
-
News
Oxford wrote:
> "Ness-Net" <richa...@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
>
> catch me back in 5 years...
Better idea: hold your breath and let's see what happens.
No cheat-breathing, now, Oxie-moron. Hold it.
CozmicDebris
>
> sure there was, the MP3 market was just as obsolete as the Cell market
> at the time. Apple came in with a much better product priced at $399,
> and then ended up with 72% of the market based on QUALITY.
>
> The exact same thing is happening in the Cell Market, but only faster.
> Apple has come quicker onto the scene with their great reputation in
> building small, perfect devices. Apple sells 139,000 ipods every 24
> hours, the triple that amount will be sold of iPhone within 18 months,
> learn to deal with the new KING of Cell Phones.
>
> You have no other choice...
>
>
> Verizon is fading away faster than you can say "Diamond Rio", the
public
> has caught on that Verizon is very expensive, very poor support and
> doesn't have the top product, the iPhone.
>
> Expect Verizon to be bought out within 6 years. They are just a
> marketing firm for the poorly educated.
>
>
> But none of them can build a great product. Look at the LG Voyager!
What
> is this 1999? That product is so far behind the iPhone it makes Korea
> look like Bangladesh.
>
> The iPhone will have massive market share, 30% or more in the coming
> years.
>
> Nobody can compete at this level, they just don't have the background,
> or manufacturing talent to build small, highly engineered devices like
> Apple does.
>
> -
>
Do you actually read the shit you post? There is inaccuracy and poor
vision in every one of the statements above.
-The mp3 market was emerging when the iPod was developed. The cellualr
market is a mature, almost saturated market. There is no comparison,
dimwit.
-Apple is barely making a ripple in the US market these days. Once the
hype died down, it became just another phone.
-Apple will not be selling 150 million cel phones a year in 18 months.
-Verizon is positioned to overtake AT&T in the near future and actually
is outperforming them in postpaid customer adds- the prime customers.
-The LG Voyager is expected to sell quite well and could represent the
turnng point in Verizon's efforts to be #1.
_The iPhone will be lucky to hit 5% of the world market at it's peak.
-Actually, cell phone makers will have no problem competing with the
iPhone. See the Motorola Razr and the long-term effect on other
manufacturers- there were none.
You're an idiot and no amount of postulating on your part is ever going
to hide it.
CozmicDebris
> "Ness-Net" <richa...@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Bullshit.
>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
More bullshit. Other than the mp3 market, Apple is a third rate player in
EVERY other market they do businees in.
>
> -
>
DTC
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
Two decades??? Hell, the iPhone will be obsolete, MORON.
Ness-Net
OK...... I'll NOT be holding my breath in the mean time.
Here's the deal..... the market is FAR from "static" and functions
VERY well. Therefore, your suppositions aren't based on any facts.
Therefore, they are completely false.
DTC
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
Always???
Lets see....
1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
$7,499 price been a factor?
10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
CozmicDebris
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
You forgot Apple TV.
CozmicDebris
216.196.97.142:
And the Motorola ROKR, a joint project betwwen Moto and Apple
And Macintosh TV
Todd Allcock
> Verizon is fading away faster than you can say "Diamond Rio", the
public
> has caught on that Verizon is very expensive, very poor support and
> doesn't have the top product, the iPhone.
You're forgetting that a mobile operator's "product" is their network-
not the cute assortment of devices they sell. Frankly, Verizon has
always lagged other carriers in the "latest and greatest" phones, since
the GSM carriers can dip into the larger worldwide selection of GSM phones.
Despite this, Verizon ha always been very successful, since most
customers prefer a mediocre phone on a great network, over a great phone
on a mediocre network.
> Expect Verizon to be bought out within 6 years. They are just a
> marketing firm for the poorly educated.
If that was so, I'd expect you to have been a longtime customer...
CozmicDebris
news:jr47k31i4v9sru6tl...@4ax.com:
> Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
> example.
>
No- it was the flat screen hi-def market! Oh, wait... that was everybody
BUT Apple.
Never mind.
DTC
>> You forgot Apple TV.
>>
>
> And the Motorola ROKR, a joint project betwwen Moto and Apple
I didn't mention the ROKR as he would have diluted Apple's failure as a
Motorola thing.
Nor the Apple TV as he would have said I never gave it a chance to fly.
CozmicDebris
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
> CozmicDebris wrote:
>>> You forgot Apple TV.
>>>
>>
>> And the Motorola ROKR, a joint project betwwen Moto and Apple
>
> I didn't mention the ROKR as he would have diluted Apple's failure as a
> Motorola thing.
But wait- Apple always sets the terms and makes the rules. Remember?
Motorola would have been at the mercy of the might Apple.
>
> Nor the Apple TV as he would have said I never gave it a chance to fly.
>
But Apple Products don't need time to fly. Apple goes in and changes the
face of industries with their cutting edge technology.
Wow- I've been listening to his crap for too long if I can recite it back
that quickly.
DTC
> But Apple Products don't need time to fly. Apple goes in and changes the
> face of industries with their cutting edge technology.
Spoken like a true Oxturd sockpuppet.
JUST JOKING ! ! !
Mitch
> > Vodafone did not ask the court to stop T-Mobile from selling the iPhone,
> > Gordon said.
> > Vodafone would like to see a court eventually mandate that T-Mobile sell an
> > unlocked
> > version of the iPhone for the same or less as today's locked version, he
> > said.
> >
> >
> > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139798/vodafone_protests_tmobi
> > le
> > _iphone_sales.html
> >
> > I don't think I've ever seen someone (Oxford) more consistently full of
> > shit.
>
> Yes, but from a LEGAL perspective Vodafone is TERRIFIED of losing
> customers to the iPhone,
What can you show us to support that Vodafone is terrified?
> so they are trying to open up holes so they can
What can you show us to support that they are acting specifically
against iPhone and not other competition?
> obtain revenue from the iPhone without committing to the future.
How does Vodafone get iPhone revenue?
How does that prevent them from a commitment?
> No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact.
In what way? To everyone else in the entire world, there are many
competitors, doing very well. Using ANY metric of any kind, iPhone is
one of many hundreds of choices, and it is clear to everyone else that
people will continue, mostly happily, to buy other ones.
> Apple has too many patents on the future, so
Apple has many patents on specific technologies that are in iPhone.
That's common -- most companies own patents for their techs. Since no
one has to replicate exactly what iPhone has in it, the patents only
mean that Apple is protected from exact copies. They aren't protected
from just all innovation.
> everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
Show us one way this is true.
Even assuming everyone HAD to copy the iPhone, there are many ways to
do many things. A little cleverness might manage.
But obviously they do NOT have to copy the thing -- they just need to
make better products, not the same thing Apple has.
> These are the facts... cell carriers and handset makers must face.
They are not facts, and that's one of your problems. They are OPINIONS
based on your extremely narrow view of what is going on and what is
needed in the industry. Plus, your incredibly shallow appreciation of
what iPhone is about that makes you think it's so unique or wonderful
that everyone must have one.
> Do a great deal with Apple to carry the iPhone, or disappear.
You seem to be missing a lot of major facts:
Apple isn't looking for multiple carriers. No one gets that choice, in
the short term. It's done. Over. Kaput. Everyone that isn't selling it
now has to find other handsets (there are MANY fine ones!) to sell and
promote.
Haven't you noticed they continue to do that, and are doing just fine?
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.
Your sure your really narrow, extremist view is so amazingly certain
that it predicts many decades of the future? That's idiotic!
Mitch
<linuxlovesosx-A0A...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.
Well, it's the beginning of a product line. We see the second already.
There is no reason at all to assume there is a complex line of products
behind it.
More to the point, everyone else int he entire industry is ready to
compete -- you can imagine more iPhone models, why can't you also
imagine more models from Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, etc.?
> Apple has 20-30 designs on their 3D imager right now
You want to demonstrate where you got that number?
You use a number, YOU have to prove it. Prove that there are
specifically that many designs at Apple, and that the number is
relevant compared to what others are developing.
> and is fine tuning
> them as we speak to match the larger Cell Market. You'll see 8 to 12 new
> models of iPhones within 36 months.
Prove this, too -- it flies against everything Apple has said.
Are you seriously claiming to have more accurate information than what
Apple has said about it?
> That's just how Apple operates... always bettering themselves since
> there is no outside competition.
Stupid and wrong -- Apple has always had competition. In every field.
Apple's skill is in making excellent products do specific things well.
> So, don't focus on the great first iPhone and say it's the last.
No one did -- but EVERYONE else is smart enough to know they can't make
statements about how the future models are selling, and about how badly
the competition stacks up, and about how whole markets fold in spite of
all evidence. Everyone else is smarter, see?
> Simply look at the Monochrome 5GB iPod sold at $399 in 2001, then look
> at the iPod Nano 8GB sold today in Walmarts across the world.
That shows what? That Apple wil upgrade models?
That's assumed. But it doesn't mean that they will always beat the
competition by that amount.
> Apple has only opened up 7 outlets for the iPhone, and it's been a
> massive success. 90x times more popular than the original iPod!
Largely _because_ of the iPod popularity, and therefore not scalar.
> The iPod now sells at upwards of 47,000 locations...
Um... didn't you just describe channels, and now are talking about
locations? isn't the number of locations huge already?
> The iPhone will follow the same successful path.
Except Macs have shown us that sales locations mean very little.
ed
news:201120071908516607%mi...@hawaii.rr...
> In article
> <linuxlovesosx-A0A...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
>> and is fine tuning
>> them as we speak to match the larger Cell Market. You'll see 8 to 12 new
>> models of iPhones within 36 months.
> Prove this, too -- it flies against everything Apple has said.
> Are you seriously claiming to have more accurate information than what
> Apple has said about it?
sure, oxford claims stuff like that all the time- like he claimed that apple
had hit 1.25million iphones sold in the first two weeks of sales, even after
they said they were hoping for 1million in the first quarter. oxford
basically claimed they were playing coy. ;D
<snip>
Mitch
<linuxlovesosx-163...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say SHIT! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
If any of it happens to come to truth, you don't get credit for it.
You have been told this -- you have to DEMONSTRATE why you think so,
with reasons, and then you get credit only for a correct analysis of
that point of evidence.
Yes, I'll be there to recognize if you are right about any of it -- if
you ever show us anything but a wild guess. And if you have learned to
use just the one name after so long.
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
Sarcasm time.
Yes, _you_ the boastful child, have seen and understood so much more
than everyone else.
Your analysis (in spite of missing reasons and missing facts and
nothing but wild unsupported opinion) is worth so much to others. Yes,
because everyone finds you so authoritative, with every point an error
or guess, and every claim about an unknown future that only _you_ seem
to be able to see. And you see it so clearly, how can anyone refute it?
You claim that in the future they are FACTS! So, obviously your
perspective has to be right!
How about this -- for every claim you have beaten over the heads of
others, you wager that you are either right or we get to beat over your
head with anything we please?
I'm serious -- make that wager.
You'll do it, because you have blind faith and actually feel the
internet is abvout being anonymous and annoying as much as you want.
It isn't about that. You are expected to answer for your claims.
Mitch
<m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
That's as stupid as what Ozford wrote.
Obviously, no one is assuming the iPhone will always have its current
state and specs. Sure, the current one will _seem_ obsolete, maybe even
be actually obsolete. But who make a comparison with a model from
several decades earlier and ignores the current one?
CozmicDebris
I think what he was trying to say is that many Apple products have come out
to a blaze of glory only to fizzle out in a year or two.
This could easily be one of those.
Snit
on 11/20/07 10:17 PM:
Can you support that? :)
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Mitch
<m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> CozmicDebris wrote:
> >> You forgot Apple TV.
> >>
> >
> > And the Motorola ROKR, a joint project betwwen Moto and Apple
>
> I didn't mention the ROKR as he would have diluted Apple's failure as a
> Motorola thing.
Not Motorola alone, but certainly a failure of compromising between the
different developers.
Check out the Wired article -- it mentions many of them. Lots of good
factors listed in that (2005?) article. I'll see if I have it handy...
> Nor the Apple TV as he would have said I never gave it a chance to fly.
Well, if you judge it today, that is true.
ROKR showed that Apple does a LOT better making it's own products than
compromising and working with a partner and many secondary contractors.
IMHO IIRC
CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
the market and killed off the competition? lol
CozmicDebris
news:jJP0j.3622$xP4....@newsfe18.lga:
He hasn't finished sweeping the floor at work. The fry machine took
longer than normal.
David Friedman
<linuxlovesosx-163...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -
Market share in personal computers--much less than a majority.
Market share in pda's--haven't seen any Newtons around lately.
So far as I can tell, the only thing that comes even close to fitting
your description is the iPod.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
David Friedman
"Ness-Net" <richa...@more.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
> >
> >
>
> It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
> The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
>
As I read it, it's the desire of the responders to feel good about
themselves by dumping on a readily available target that's the main
driver for the responses.
But perhaps I am being uncharitable.
David Friedman
<linuxlovesosx-A0A...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> > some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> > not for most.
> >
> > > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> > > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
> >
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.
Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
responding to, was:
"No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact."
Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
then?" That's a very different claim.
Mitch
<linuxlovesosx-71D...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> SJ will own the cell market in that amount of time, he gained 72% of the
> much more competitive MP3 market in 4 years, so commanding the cell
> industry is a piece of cake since there are no strong players.
The music-player market is not "much more competitive" -- and I'll bet
no one has ever told you it was. You just made that up to try to
support your other silly statement.
The music player market is much _less_ competitive than the cell market.
But "no strong players?" Seriously, _everyone_ else in the industry is
stronger than Apple is right now.
> > > vodafone, is freaking out since they lost the apple contract, so they
> > > are crying out... into court... verizon is next to cry wolf, just
> > > watch.
> >
> > Vodafone is questioning the sales practices, not the phone, stupid. Laws
> > in Europe are much different than they are here.
>
> Ah, they are still fearful, sales practices shouldn't matter to a court,
Since when? Have you really never heard of any laws regarding sales,
advertising, contracts, marketing claims, sales reportage, etc.?
> customer demand is what matters and everyone has voted for the iPhone to
> be No. 1 worldwide.
"everyone has voted?"
No, sir, the people you are including in that are apparently just the
ones that actually bought the device. Everyone else didn't buy one. So
your 'everyone' is actually less than 2M out of all cell users in the
world.
> > And why would Verizon cry wolf when they are once again signing up more new
> > customers than AT&T?
>
> Verizon is dying, they lost the iPhone contract because of their own
> bungling, and have been in defensive mode ever since.
They didn't 'lose' the contract -- they didn't have it, because they
didn't want it. The 'defensive mode' you are talking about is natural
-- it is a result of heavy discussion and marketing about iPhone and
responding to demands for better features/phones/services.
> If a cell handset maker doesn't win Apple's good graces, they are no
> longer a viable company.
Huh?
How does Apple have anything at all to do with other cell makers?
They are doing fine -- all they have to do is improve their products.
They don't even have to do the same things Apple has done -- they need
need to try harder.
That doesn't help Apple, but it helps the consumer. (Well, every
consumer except the ones who want basic, simple phones!)
Mitch
<linuxlovesosx-21C...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxl...@superart.com> wrote:
> > > in the the country of Germany. They can't stand the iPhone's pressure,
> > > so are seeking court relief before they go under.
> >
> > Go under? Aren't they the largest cell company on the planet?
>
> yes, thanks for proving my point. Vodafone is financially weak and
HUh?
Because they are the largest, they are financially weak?
Is that what you are saying?
> likely can't survive the advancements of the iPhone in their
> non-competitive markets.
You want to explain how it's non-competitive, and how that aspect means
that they can't survive something as basic as an introduction of a
handset from a different maker?
Again, it isn't about the idea that iPhone is a good phone, or even a
popular phone -- you are ignoring all of the factors of business in
order to make silly statements about how good YOU (you alone!) think
iPhone is (and will be) without considering any of the good things
anyone else offers.
Mitch
<m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
> > Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Always???
>
> Lets see....
> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
and a long life, for most units.
> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
Yes; the wrong product for the time.
> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
"never found a market" means that it didn't become know for a major
market -- i.e, major success -- which is like saying "it was just an
everyday, innovative and technically original computer maker."
> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
What's your point? Don't most makers change their products hugely, more
often? Apple didn't give up on the stuff in the Cube, just the case
design, because it's early pricing had stained it's marketability.
> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
No, it was a technically interesting project, that was too different to
integrate into the current market.
> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
No, folded. Great ideas, again, but not applied at the time. I'd bet
EVERYTHING in Taligent is used today, proving that Apple was on the
right track, just too early.
> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
Yes, a useless project.
> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
So what? It was another of those partnership projects that shows the
people working with Apple compromise with everyone too much.
> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
> $7,499 price been a factor?
Sure; it was built to be a computer for elitists! (Where high price is
an advantage, and it's never going to be made in large numbers!)
> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
Pricing killed all the other portable makers. Doesn't reflect badly for
Apple.
> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
Before it's time. It was innovative and nicely made, just didn't have
the customers then.
> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
True, but a (very visible) minor design problem, easily fixed by Apple
or the consumer or third parties.
You've pasted a list of projects that didn't succeed financially
against a statement that Apple disrupts static markets -- so which of
these are about that?
Clearly, the Oxford troll has no foundation, but I don't even see what
you were trying to say here!
Mitch
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
> responding to, was:
>
> "No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
> that's a pure fact."
Which is still blatantly wrong and misguided, in every way.
> Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
> revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
> compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
> then?" That's a very different claim.
It is a different claim -- different enough that it has nothing to do
with the previous statement.
Your second version is also wrong, for all the _same_ reasons:
there are several things iPhone doesn't do
there are different things each user wants in a pocket device
marketable devices have to make compromises (technology, abilities,
component costs) that mean someone else always gets to do something
better.
Those last two reasons are immutable: they mean that no matter what, no
matter how much you love a new handset, no matter how well it sells,
there can never be just one 'best' product in such a market. Never.
What everyone upset with iPhone hype is missing is that Apple didn't
make a device to make everyone happy -- they never do. They focus on a
narrow set and make the best product for that set. That's what they're
built on, and that's why so many people outside that set never see why
the people on the inside are so entranced.
Mitch
Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> Apple introduced a big, slow, locked,
> expensive, proprietary phone
Wow -- you, too, are wrong on almost every point
it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
has close to that screen res.
it isn't particularly slow processing
locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
it isn't expensive compared to most phones with a high-res screen (and
it's totally foolish to compare to ANYTHING that doesn't have that --
it's the PRIME feature!)
Just what are you calling proprietary?
> into a market dominated by smaller, faster,
> less expensive models
smaller models are missing the major factor that it is built on -- the
one that says it's idiotic to compare to anything else.
Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
(I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
ripped off, right?)
It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
phone for that customer.
It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
they didn't make anything for that customer at all!
Mitch
<NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
> >>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
> the market and killed off the competition? lol
He didn't say the only things Apple does is disrupt such markets; he is
claiming that when they go into such markets, they succeed.
It's still nonsense, but there are a couple times when Apple has done
very well going into a market that needed new ideas.
(I'm thinking laptops, all-in-ones, video editing, etc.)
CozmicDebris
news:221120070706106312%mi...@hawaii.rr:
Hey- if I throw enough crap against the wall, some of it will stick.
That's sort of the attitude your last statement infers in the context of
the conversation.
I'd rather be skilled than lucky.
Mark Crispin
> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> has close to that screen res.
iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
technology LCDs
> it isn't particularly slow processing
> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the worst
major carrier in the US.
> Just what are you calling proprietary?
As a phone, it isn't particularly proprietary, but as an Internet access
device it is. The Internet access device market is one in which the
entire firmware (not just selected pieces) is open source, and in which
people can, and do, produce and distribute their own modified firmware.
> Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
> iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
> good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
height (preferably 600, 768, or more). It is not "the real Internet" if
you have to zoom out to an unreadable level to see page layout, then zoom
in to read the text. It is not "the real Internet" if web designers have
to create special CSS to "optimize" for your device.
LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.
I can't get over how HUGE the pixels are in iPhone. Maybe you think that
that is decent image resolution, but to me it is like looking at a
newspaper.
> (I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
> more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
> ripped off, right?)
That argument doesn't wash. Three year old screen technology (and yes,
320x480 screens were on phones in Japan in 2004) isn't that expensive.
> It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
> phone for that customer.
> It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
> they didn't make anything for that customer at all!
These arguments may be correct. The problem is that certain cretins (most
notably Oxford) claim that iPhone is the be-all and end-all for everybody.
iPhone's legitimate market is that of a way-cool iPod that is also a phone
and an Internet access device; and its legitimate customers are those who
want a way-cool iPod that is also a phone and an Internet access device.
iPhone is not "the best phone". As a phone, it is mediocre. It is large,
it is expensive, it is locked, it is 2G-only, and its voice performance is
merely adequate. Other products do better in all of these categories.
Remember, we are talking about "as a phone" -- the screen resolution is
irrelevant here.
iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
Case in point. iPod Touch, which started out as iPhone minus the phone,
is failing badly in the market. The question is not "if" Apple will
cancel it, but "when". It is overpriced, both as an iPod and as an
Internet access device. It deletes more than just the phone part of
iPhone, making it much less attractive. Clearly, Apple was worried that
iPod Touch would compete with iPhone, but in the process of making it
non-competitive with iPhone they made it non-competitive with the Nokia
N800.
iPhone is not a business tool at all. It lacks the business tools found
in smart phones. The few executives who tried iPhone as a substitute for
Blackberry quickly went back to their Blackberry.
Nobody, nobody!!, is disputing that iPhone is king of the "way-cool iPod
that is also a phone and an Internet access device" market. For people
who want that sort of thing, iPhone is perfect.
Nonetheless, iPhone is not a serious player in the phone market, nor the
Internet access device market, nor the business tool market. Nor is
iPhone a serious player in the teenager market (way too geeky for the
girls, way too nerdish for most of the boys). iPhone is a toy for adult,
primarily male, nerds who play with technological toys but don't really
*need* it.
iPhone will have at least one follow-on product. But it has pretty much
gotten as much market share as it is going to get; and the successor
iPhone will cannibalize previous sales more than gain new market.
As noted above, iPod Touch is toast, barring a major price drop (e.g.,
$175 for the 8GB version and $250 for the 16GB version). Expect to see
that kind of pricing at firesale if Apple does not buy them back.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Tinman
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
>> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything
>> that has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs
>
Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
kinds of ridiculous assertions.
Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
recently-introduced "iPhone killers."
But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.
>> it isn't particularly slow processing
>> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
>
> Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the
> worst major carrier in the US.
They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM, allowed them
to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone as a first-release
would have been a disaster. At least try to think it through.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your post as your opening comments were
ludicrous. You are no better than Oxford, perhaps worse.
--
Mike
David Friedman
Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> > it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> > has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs
There is a much smaller portable device with resolution of 960x640? What
is it? That would be more than twice the resolution of the Nokia E90,
which is more expensive than the iPhone and heavier.
...
> I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
> 320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
> pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
> height (preferably 600, 768, or more).
That would be very nice. What device that connects via the cell network
and is small enough to be about as convenient as the iPhone meets those
requirements?
The closest I could come was the E90, with 800x352, but it had enough
other problems so that I sent it back.
...
> LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
> iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
> on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.
Is that device a cell phone?
Also, I'm not sure how much good additional resolution does without
additional screen size.
...
> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
But isn't a phone. And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.
CozmicDebris
>
> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone
> as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try to think
> it through.
Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to the FCC
long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into development. They
also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T
David Friedman
wrote:
> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.
>
The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution. It's
also heavier and more expensive. It does have a 3G connection--provided
you are in Europe where the frequency it uses is supported.
And the current software, at least by my experience, is pretty bad.
David Friedman
CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
Whether or not they preferred GSM, they would presumably want to keep
their options open in order to improve their bargaining power with the
providers.
CozmicDebris
news:ddfr-58BB99.1...@news.isp.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns99F07DC315...@216.196.97.142>,
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> "Tinman" <a...@for.it> wrote in
>> news:5qm2koF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>> > allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>> > iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>> > to think it through.
>>
>> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
>> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
>> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before
>> AT&T
>
> Whether or not they preferred GSM, they would presumably want to keep
> their options open in order to improve their bargaining power with the
> providers.
>
Then why not submit them at the same time? That would be the smart way to
keep their options open in order to improve their bargaining power with the
providers.
They were banking on Verizon to take the phone and then had to scramble
when they were shown the door.
Snit
Xns99F06EDBD9...@216.196.97.142 on 11/22/07 10:53 AM:
> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in
> news:221120070706106312%mi...@hawaii.rr:
>
>> In article <jJP0j.3622$xP4....@newsfe18.lga>, IMHO IIRC
>> <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes
>>>>>> all.
>>
>>> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices
>>> dominated the market and killed off the competition? lol
>>
>> He didn't say the only things Apple does is disrupt such markets; he
>> is claiming that when they go into such markets, they succeed.
>>
>> It's still nonsense, but there are a couple times when Apple has done
>> very well going into a market that needed new ideas.
>> (I'm thinking laptops, all-in-ones, video editing, etc.)
>>
>
> Hey- if I throw enough crap against the wall, some of it will stick.
Explains your posting philosophy well.
> That's sort of the attitude your last statement infers in the context of
> the conversation.
>
> I'd rather be skilled than lucky.
But either would be better than where you are now, eh?
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Tinman
> "Tinman" <a...@for.it> wrote:
>>
>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>> to think it through.
>
> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T
You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust any of
your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.
The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is AT&T.
Deal with it and stop the whining.
--
Mike
Tinman
> In article <5qm2koF...@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <a...@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>> Absurd.
>>
>
> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> It's also heavier and more expensive.
That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
nonetheless.
Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
--
Mike
Snit
11/22/07 2:19 PM:
Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his other
BS claims:
* Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
* Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
* I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.
* He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
pointed to.
He never managed to support any of those claims. Funny that, eh?
--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley
CozmicDebris
news:C36B41EF.9A91F%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com:
> "Tinman" <a...@for.it> stated in post
> 5qma25F...@mid.individual.net on 11/22/07 2:19 PM:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <5qm2koF...@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman"
>>> <a...@for.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>>> Absurd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>>
>> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.
>> Indeed a phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice
>> the resolution, released with a glaring defect, can't really be used
>> to argue that the iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing
>> that, but I bring it up nonetheless.
>>
>> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone
>> and have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then
>> this comment from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge
>> compared to devices which have twice or four times the screen
>> resolution."
>>
> Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his
> other BS claims:
>
You probably could if he was responding to me, numbnuts.
Damn, Shit- you are clueless.
Snit
>>> Until then this comment from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge
>>> compared to devices which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
>>>
>> Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his other
>> BS claims:
>>
>> * Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
>>
>> * Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
>>
>> * I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.
>>
>> * He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
>> pointed to.
>>
>> He never managed to support any of those claims. Funny that, eh?
>
> You probably could if he was responding to me, numbnuts.
>
> Damn, Shit- you are clueless.
I assumed he was in reference to you when he referred to someone as "the
cosmic brainiac". If I was mistaken I apologize - and shall not add that to
the list of your unsupported claims.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
David Friedman
wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <5qm2koF...@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <a...@for.it>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> >> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
> >> Absurd.
> >>
> >
> > The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> > It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.
Pretty close.
480x320=153,600
800x352=281,600
CozmicDebris
CS...@gallopinginsanity.com:
> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
> Xns99F06EDBD9...@216.196.97.142 on 11/22/07 10:53 AM:
>
>> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote in
>> news:221120070706106312%mi...@hawaii.rr:
>>
>>> In article <jJP0j.3622$xP4....@newsfe18.lga>, IMHO IIRC
>>> <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes
>>>>>>> all.
>>>
>>>> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices
>>>> dominated the market and killed off the competition? lol
>>>
>>> He didn't say the only things Apple does is disrupt such markets; he
>>> is claiming that when they go into such markets, they succeed.
>>>
>>> It's still nonsense, but there are a couple times when Apple has done
>>> very well going into a market that needed new ideas.
>>> (I'm thinking laptops, all-in-ones, video editing, etc.)
>>>
>>
>> Hey- if I throw enough crap against the wall, some of it will stick.
>
> Explains your posting philosophy well.
Only in your eyes, Pumpkin.
>
>> That's sort of the attitude your last statement infers in the context of
>> the conversation.
>>
>> I'd rather be skilled than lucky.
>
> But either would be better than where you are now, eh?
See previous statemnet.
>
>
CozmicDebris
> CozmicDebris wrote:
>> "Tinman" <a...@for.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>>> to think it through.
>>
>> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
>> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
>> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before
>> AT&T
>
> You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust
> any of your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.
And the amount of distress that will cause me will probably keep me awake
for the next few hours.
>
> The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is
> AT&T. Deal with it and stop the whining.
>
>
Who's whining, Rainman? The facts are well documented- Apple's original
network of choice was Verizon, and they were shown the door by Verizon.
The original iPhone was designed as a CDMA phone, and submitted to the FCC
as such. Only after being turned down did the GSM phone miraculously
appear.
Snit
>>> Hey- if I throw enough crap against the wall, some of it will stick.
>>
>> Explains your posting philosophy well.
>
> Only in your eyes, Pumpkin.
Let's test our claims. I say here is some of what you threw against the
wall:
* Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
* Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
* I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.
* He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
pointed to.
If you can make it "stick", in other words support it, then I will be shown
to be wrong.
If you cannot support it then I will have been shown to be right.
Easy test.
And, of course, easy to predict, with complete certainty, that you will
fail.
See how predictable you are. Have fun exercising that throwing arm of
yours. :)
>>> That's sort of the attitude your last statement infers in the context of
>>> the conversation.
>>>
>>> I'd rather be skilled than lucky.
>>
>> But either would be better than where you are now, eh?
>
>
> See previous statemnet.
Your grade school antics do not present you as a clever person.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
CozmicDebris
news:C36B84AB.9A968%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com:
> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
> Xns99F0B65846...@216.196.97.142 on 11/22/07 5:55 PM:
>
>>>> Hey- if I throw enough crap against the wall, some of it will
>>>> stick.
>>>
>>> Explains your posting philosophy well.
>>
>> Only in your eyes, Pumpkin.
>
> Let's test our claims. I say here is some of what you threw against
> the wall:
>
> * Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
That's not what I said- you're making things up.
>
> * Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.
Apple frequentely rewrites its philosophy and history:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/03/70546
>
> * I am wrong about how to spell my online name... but he is right.
My spelling is merely based on the absence of meaningful content in your
posts, Snot.
>
> * He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
> pointed to.
And I did just that- provided a link to it as a matter of fact. You
know that, becaue the link was provided at your request.
>
> If you can make it "stick", in other words support it, then I will be
> shown to be wrong.
Supported the ones that require it
>
>
> Your grade school antics do not present you as a clever person.
>
>
My grade school antics? You're the one posting the same little whining
list multiple times. The only juvenile here is you, Shit.
>