the iPhone Widget List!

Oxford

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 12:53:04 PM6/27/07

to

wow, already many apps / widgets for the iPhone and the thing doesn't
ship for 55ish hours! expect 1000's of these in a few months... they
really make apps on any other mobile phone obsolete!

http://www.iphonewidgetlist.com/

Those guys are sooooo screwed!

Learn how to make them fast, here:

http://webkit.org/blog/?p=87

Check the left side for the tools...

-

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 2:17:48 PM6/27/07

to

Oxford wrote:
> wow, already many apps / widgets for the iPhone and the thing doesn't
> ship for 55ish hours! expect 1000's of these in a few months... they
> really make apps on any other mobile phone obsolete!
>
> http://www.iphonewidgetlist.com/
>

Wake me up when u can get more than tepid gimmicky widget toys.

Here's some 3d Java racing games.

http://www.michaelyuan.com/blog/2007/04/23/photo-realistic-3d-driving-games-on-java-mobile-phones/

Notice how puny your iphone widget webapps look in comparison?

I'll give you a tip, if your phone if it cannot use client side apps
(and the iphone is severely crippled because it cannot) can not match
the diversity and capabilities of of other cellphones.

The iphone is a crippled phone that does not allow you to make use of
any of the thousands of free Java games and apps out there on the web.

* Having some white castle while tapping this out on my Opera Mini
Java browser.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 2:25:58 PM6/27/07

to

asjbio...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Wake me up when u can get more than tepid gimmicky widget toys.
>
> Here's some 3d Java racing games.
>
> http://www.michaelyuan.com/blog/2007/04/23/photo-realistic-3d-driving-games-on-java-mobile-phones/
>
> Notice how puny your iphone widget webapps look in comparison?
>
> I'll give you a tip, if your phone if it cannot use client side apps
> (and the iphone is severely crippled because it cannot) can not match
> the diversity and capabilities of of other cellphones.
>
> The iphone is a crippled phone that does not allow you to make use of
> any of the thousands of free Java games and apps out there on the web.
>
> * Having some white castle while tapping this out on my Opera Mini
> Java browser.

whoops, the burger got in the way of my typing,

Point is though that java apps will always be better than any widget
toys.Just compare a desktop standalone app like google earth to a
webapp like google maps. Plus, since the market for java apps is a
multi-billion dollar one and worldwide, you can get free games and
apps on the web if your phone can run it.

iphones are severely crippled gadgets that will not allow you to run
the thousands of cool free apps out there.

* ewwww,,burger drippings!

Oxford

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 2:40:36 PM6/27/07

to

asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> > http://www.iphonewidgetlist.com/
>
> Wake me up when u can get more than tepid gimmicky widget toys.

gosh, you are such a sore loser.

> Here's some 3d Java racing games.
>
> http://www.michaelyuan.com/blog/2007/04/23/photo-realistic-3d-driving-games-on
> -java-mobile-phones/

then port them over, apple has high end games for the ipod, not silly
stuff like your link above

http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/games/

> Notice how puny your iphone widget webapps look in comparison?

ah, and do you realize there isn't yet a single iphone in the hands of
an owner yet? but in 3 weeks there will be millions in use?

> I'll give you a tip, if your phone if it cannot use client side apps
> (and the iphone is severely crippled because it cannot) can not match
> the diversity and capabilities of of other cellphones.
>
> The iphone is a crippled phone that does not allow you to make use of
> any of the thousands of free Java games and apps out there on the web.
>
> * Having some white castle while tapping this out on my Opera Mini
> Java browser.

Your just very, very, very jealous of a more advanced phone. I can see
the anger in your posts. Just get an iPhone and make yourself happy for
a change.

-

Dr zara

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 2:47:15 PM6/27/07

to

"Oxford" <colalo...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-E65...@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net...

55 loooong hours. How will you ever survive?

Oxford

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 2:48:36 PM6/27/07

to

asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> * Having some white castle while tapping this out on my Opera Mini
> Java browser.

i like white castle in a blue collar sort of way. when you get done
being a redneck, check out Web 2.0 apps. It's looking more and more like
java has died.

http://www.apple.com/iphone/pr/20070611iphone.html

Oxford

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 3:02:55 PM6/27/07

to

asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> > * Having some white castle while tapping this out on my Opera Mini
> > Java browser.
>
> whoops, the burger got in the way of my typing,

if you had an iphone, that wouldn't be an issue :) (just totally kidding)

> Point is though that java apps will always be better than any widget
> toys.Just compare a desktop standalone app like google earth to a
> webapp like google maps.

yes, and Java / Google Earth works quite well on OSX, the same OS inside
the iPhone... hum... could there be a connection???????

> Plus, since the market for java apps is a
> multi-billion dollar one and worldwide, you can get free games and
> apps on the web if your phone can run it.
>
> iphones are severely crippled gadgets that will not allow you to run
> the thousands of cool free apps out there.

Hard to say quite yet, we are still 52 hours out, so while the iPhone
will certainly have MORE apps than any cell phones, the degree of
complexity in the first few months will probably pale in comparison for
around a year, then watch out. It's the whole iPod has 72% share, iPhone
has 72% share simply because it's a better product, and fully runs on
802.11, not some slow "cell" network.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 3:04:55 PM6/27/07

to

Oxford wrote:
>

ROTFLOL!!!!

You give us some tepid looking little widget thingies and I show you
3D Java apps that I have running on my cell and you want me to use
YOUR puny little apps?

It's hilarious how far from reality some of you macnuts are....

Dude, i have several remote desktop java apps that allow me to log in
to my desktop and servers right now as if i'm right there. Widgets
won't do that.

I also have a Skype app that allows free calls. Widgets won't do
that..

I can name quite a lot of java standalone phone apps that can do
what stupid widgets can't do.

It's like asking ur desktop browser to suddenly work like Photoshop.

Like i said, complain to apple why they are preventing you guys from
access to so many free and useful apps and games by crippling the
iphone.

* tapping on my opera mini java browser while finishing up on lunch.

Oxford

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 3:26:26 PM6/27/07

to

asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> ROTFLOL!!!!
>
> You give us some tepid looking little widget thingies and I show you
> 3D Java apps that I have running on my cell and you want me to use
> YOUR puny little apps?

yes, but your 3D app was very primitive, not worthy of consideration for
a high end crowd. Plus it was a silly sports game for kids, not a
serious App.

You need to really realize what you are dealing with here, Bill Joy the
founder of Java is a HUGE mac fan, so Java Apps will be coming to the
iPhone, but not cheesy ones that only interest 10th graders.

> It's hilarious how far from reality some of you macnuts are....

No, most of us know the future, and have designed it. We just have to
deal with underlings that haven't yet caught up to our vision.

> Dude, i have several remote desktop java apps that allow me to log in
> to my desktop and servers right now as if i'm right there. Widgets
> won't do that.

Yes, and Apple has Remote Desktop that puts your Java App to SHAME.

http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/

You don't seem to understand when you are dealing with the Apple world,
you are dealing with the pioneers of all this stuff, Apple sets the
rules for the world, others later follow, and that's been true for
nearly 32 years.

> I also have a Skype app that allows free calls. Widgets won't do
> that..

Not 51 hours before launch, but a few weeks after, Skype will run much
better on the iPhone than any other cell phone made.

> I can name quite a lot of java standalone phone apps that can do
> what stupid widgets can't do.

Then learn how to do it, Java isn't going to make you a single penny,
it's too old school, but Apple's WebKit could make you millions, IF you
put down your silly games and white castle hamburgers and move out of a
blue collar state.

> It's like asking ur desktop browser to suddenly work like Photoshop.
>
> Like i said, complain to apple why they are preventing you guys from
> access to so many free and useful apps and games by crippling the
> iphone.
>
> * tapping on my opera mini java browser while finishing up on lunch.

Great, and only getting about 20% of the functionality of what Safari
for the iPhone can do.

-

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 3:27:17 PM6/27/07

to

Oxford wrote:
> Hard to say quite yet, we are still 52 hours out, so while the iPhone
> will certainly have MORE apps than any cell phones, the degree of
> complexity in the first few months will probably pale in comparison for
> around a year, then watch out. It's the whole iPod has 72% share, iPhone
> has 72% share simply because it's a better product, and fully runs on
> 802.11, not some slow "cell" network.

dude, are you actually gonna get ANTHING right?

1. Your basic $49 phone actually can run more apps than the iphone
because it can run the thousands of java games and apps on the web
That's the power of having a standard. Apple decided to cripple the
iphone by denying u macnuts the right to use these resources

2. Many other high end phones have wi-fi, my dad's Nokia N95 for one,
which also has a GPS and a 5 megapixel camera. it also runs all java
j2me apps which means it againtrumps the iphone in terms of app
capability

Plus, did you see the hilarious fact that it takes 2 MINUTES for the
iphone browser to view websites???? My Opera Mini java browser spins
the same sites out in a few SECONDS.

Again apple denies you CHOICE becauae the iphone cannot run this java
app. I'm sure quite a lot of people would not want to spend ages just
trying to get to yahoo.com! :-)

* I think I'll pass by the library and look up 'Macnuts'.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 3:28:12 PM6/27/07

to

Oxford wrote:
> Hard to say quite yet, we are still 52 hours out, so while the iPhone
> will certainly have MORE apps than any cell phones, the degree of
> complexity in the first few months will probably pale in comparison for
> around a year, then watch out. It's the whole iPod has 72% share, iPhone
> has 72% share simply because it's a better product, and fully runs on
> 802.11, not some slow "cell" network.

dude, are you actually gonna get ANTHING right?

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 3:40:46 PM6/27/07

to

Oxford wrote:
>
> Then learn how to do it, Java isn't going to make you a single penny,

Since the mobile app business is a multi-billion dollar industry, how
exactly is this true? If you were at WCCD you'd know how disappointed
even the mac developers were whe n they heard there would be no sdk
for iphone. It's a SEVERELY crippled and expensive toy.

> it's too old school, but Apple's WebKit could make you millions, IF you
> put down your silly games and white castle hamburgers and move out of a
> blue collar state.

Uh, i'm a java server side guy. Java powers most of the largest
businesses on the planet including ebay, google. nasdaq, etc etc.
These are the guys with money and why Java is tops in popularity of
languages and in # of jobs.

> Great, and only getting about 20% of the functionality of what Safari
> for the iPhone can do.

Really? The reviewers don't think so..And opera mini will run flash
soon while safari will not.

Dude, give it up... ur obviously a non-tech guy and only a "fan" of
apple.

* geez..it's getting ready to rain here in NJ but i continue to post
on my FAST opera mini java browser.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 5:39:12 PM6/27/07

to

Oxford wrote:
> asjb...@gmail.com

> > Dude, i have several remote desktop java apps that allow me to log in
> > to my desktop and servers right now as if i'm right there. Widgets
> > won't do that.
>
> Yes, and Apple has Remote Desktop that puts your Java App to SHAME.
>
> http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/
>

HELLOOOOO????? Is there anything in that head of yours but mcNUTS?

I tell you about java apps on my CELLPHONE that allow remote desktop
viewing ON MY CELLPHONE you give me a desktop software?????

HELLO?????

Your iphone widgets don't have this and you can't even work on
documents and spreadsheets on it! What kind of a CRIPPLED smartphone
is that? Most smartphones allow you to create and edit Microsoft word
docs, excel spreadsheets and powerpoint.

Iphone gives you - tiny widgets! ROTFLOL

Jolly Roger

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 5:47:24 PM6/27/07

to

On 2007-06-27 16:39:12 -0500, asjb...@gmail.com said:

>
> Oxford wrote:
>> asjb...@gmail.com
>>> Dude, i have several remote desktop java apps that allow me to log in
>>> to my desktop and servers right now as if i'm right there. Widgets
>>> won't do that.
>>
>> Yes, and Apple has Remote Desktop that puts your Java App to SHAME.
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/
>
> HELLOOOOO????? Is there anything in that head of yours but mcNUTS?
>
> I tell you about java apps on my CELLPHONE that allow remote desktop
> viewing ON MY CELLPHONE you give me a desktop software?????

You're an idiot. Apple Remote Desktop uses the VNC protocol, and
everyone but you knows that you can connect to a VNC server with any
web browser.

--
JR

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 6:07:25 PM6/27/07

to

Jolly Roger wrote:
> On

> You're an idiot. Apple Remote Desktop uses the VNC protocol, and
> everyone but you knows that you can connect to a VNC server with any
> web browser.
>
> --
> JR

Hey butthead, since your iphone cannot run java or flash clients, how
is it going to do this? HTML? ROTFLOL.....there is one or two ajax
clients, but they be muy buggy, very slow and feature-starved and i
doubt they'd run in that slow ass safari anyways.

Bwahahahhah!

none

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 6:30:10 PM6/27/07

to

asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Since the mobile app business is a multi-billion dollar industry,

well the "app" business is not "multi-billion" so started off on the
wrong track.

> how
> exactly is this true? If you were at WCCD you'd know how disappointed
> even the mac developers were whe n they heard there would be no sdk
> for iphone. It's a SEVERELY crippled and expensive toy.

what is WCCD? if you don't even know what the largest Unix app
conference is called, how in the hell are you going to know what is
going on in mobile phone development?

> > it's too old school, but Apple's WebKit could make you millions, IF you
> > put down your silly games and white castle hamburgers and move out of a
> > blue collar state.
>
> Uh, i'm a java server side guy. Java powers most of the largest
> businesses on the planet including ebay, google. nasdaq, etc etc.
> These are the guys with money and why Java is tops in popularity of
> languages and in # of jobs.

hate to break the news, but ebay, google, nasdaq, ect... don't "run" on
java. sure, sure there are some small aspects that do, but java is a 5%
story with these companies.

> > Great, and only getting about 20% of the functionality of what Safari
> > for the iPhone can do.
>
> Really? The reviewers don't think so..And opera mini will run flash
> soon while safari will not.

but the iPhone runs for 6-8 hours, what does your cell phone running
Opera mini run for? I'd rather have the FULL internet and FULL speed for
most of the day, than have a clunky kid internet for 3 hours and then I
have to turn it off.

> Dude, give it up... ur obviously a non-tech guy and only a "fan" of
> apple.
>
> * geez..it's getting ready to rain here in NJ but i continue to post
> on my FAST opera mini java browser.

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 8:36:20 PM6/27/07

to

In article <1182971095.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Like i said, complain to apple why they are preventing you guys from
> access to so many free and useful apps and games by crippling the
> iphone.
>
> * tapping on my opera mini java browser while finishing up on lunch

Opera Mini crashes my Treo. LOL
Can't wait for things that work. (Like my Mac does)

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 8:39:04 PM6/27/07

to

On Jun 27, 7:10 pm, Jolly Roger <jollyro...@R.E.M.O.V.E.pobox.com>
wrote:

LOL...yeah, show us your iphone that's running a remote desktop client
on its browser....

Next time, before you jump in, make sure you know what you're talking
about ;-)

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 8:48:18 PM6/27/07

to

On Jun 27, 6:31 pm, none <a...@b.com> wrote:
> ah, the iPhone runs desktop level software, it's based on OSX and i
> think you like to forget that.

Mr. None Sheep:

please read first and educate yourself before spewing garbage like
this. desktop level software? WTF is that? It's not the full OS X
dude, it's a stripped version, just like...ummm...Windows Mobile?
Linux Mobile?

Btw, good find...they shoulda used opera mini...that NY times would
have been there in like 5 seconds ;-)

http://tech.msn.com/products/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=5061246&page=1

Data that crawls
When AT&T's EDGE network debuted in 2005, it seemed zippy indeed,
delivering data at up to 100 kilobits per second. But that was then.
Today, with true 3G technologies delivering data at up to several
hundred kbps, Apple's decision not to support AT&T's UMTS-HSDPA 3G
network seems short-sighted--especially given the iPhone's investment
in cool new Web browsing technology that doesn't suffer from the
compromises of a mobile browser. In our limited hands-on tests a few
months ago, downloading the New York Times' front page via EDGE took
quite a few seconds. AT&T has tacitly acknowledged this potential
problem by announcing upgrades to its EDGE network in anticipation of
the iPhone launch. And of course, the iPhone will support Wi-Fi, which
will make Web page downloads much more feasible if you're in range of
a hotspot.

Limited third-party apps
Lots of cell phone power users get more value out of the applications
they've loaded on their handsets themselves than the often lame or
expensive offerings from their carriers. When the iPhone was first
announced, third-party apps seemed shut out entirely, a move that
prompted one online petition of protest. Now Apple says that
developers can create iPhone apps that run in Safari. Only two
problems with that: First, those apps may be fairly poky given the
iPhone's slower EDGE network connection. Second, many developers seem
to hate writing for Safari. As PC World forums member dazeddan said,
"As a developer, we have more problems designing around Safari than
any other platform. I wish it would just go away."

Jolly Roger

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 9:37:21 PM6/27/07

to

On 2007-06-27 19:39:04 -0500, asjb...@gmail.com said:

> On Jun 27, 7:10 pm, Jolly Roger <jollyro...@R.E.M.O.V.E.pobox.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2007-06-27 17:07:25 -0500, asjbio...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> On
>>>> You're an idiot. Apple Remote Desktop uses the VNC protocol, and
>>>> everyone but you knows that you can connect to a VNC server with any
>>>> web browser.
>>
>>> Hey butthead, since your iphone cannot run java or flash clients, how
>>> is it going to do this? HTML? ROTFLOL.....there is one or two ajax
>>> clients, but they be muy buggy, very slow and feature-starved and i
>>> doubt they'd run in that slow ass safari anyways.
>>
>> Hey idiot - it runs just fine! You don't know what you are talking
>> about, dork.
>

> LOL...yeah, show us your iphone that's running a remote desktop client
> on its browser....
>
> Next time, before you jump in, make sure you know what you're talking
> about ;-)

Nice try, dummy. But since you're the one complaining, you have the
burden of proof. Prove to the rest of us the iPhone can't do it, or
shut up. : )

--
JR

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 9:44:39 PM6/27/07

to

On Jun 27, 9:37 pm, Jolly Roger <jollyro...@R.E.M.O.V.E.pobox.com>
wrote:

> Nice try, dummy. But since you're the one complaining, you have the
> burden of proof. Prove to the rest of us the iPhone can't do it, or
> shut up. : )

Nice try?? LOL.....

Since remote desktops rely on thin clients to actually render remote
views (ever try doing this using html? LOL), and since the iphone does
not run either Java or Flash (THANK YOU stevie boy!), both of which
are needed (unless you use a thick client) to actually use remotes,
then it's pretty darn unlikely a bloated slow browser like safari will
be running it right?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about other than
clicking on that marketing link and trying to sponge off it.

You sheep sure do bleat a lot....

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 9:54:27 PM6/27/07

to

On Jun 27, 3:02 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> yes, and Java / Google Earth works quite well on OSX, the same OS inside
> the iPhone... hum... could there be a connection???????

I missed this but this is quite hilarious...

DUDE, you DO know that the OS in the iphone is NOT the full OS X,
right?? Right??? RIGHT????

You weren't totally fooled by the Apple market droids, right?

It's like the stripped down version of Windows in Windows Mobile, or
the stripped down Linux in Linux Mobiles....

Kurt

unread,

Jun 27, 2007, 10:33:37 PM6/27/07

to

In article <1182995667.9...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

You don't own a mac, do you. LOL

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 2:20:23 AM6/28/07

to

On Jun 27, 10:33 pm, Kurt <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> > It's like the stripped down version of Windows in Windows Mobile, or
> > the stripped down Linux in Linux Mobiles....
>
> You don't own a mac, do you. LOL

Uh, yeah I do...a mac laptop...check my user-agent.

Kurt

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 10:43:39 AM6/28/07

to

In article <1183011623....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

Then why so jaded?

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 11:10:47 AM6/28/07

to

Kurt wrote:
>
> Then why so jaded?
>

hmmmm. must be because instead of creating a really cool and useful
cell people get an overhyped, overexpensive,CRIPPLED toy that does
less overall than a $49 feature phone because of it's very limited in
app expandability.

BAD move stevie boy.

Jolly Roger

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 2:59:08 PM6/28/07

to

All that blabber and nothing has changed. All of this is pure
speculation on your part. Nice try though. ; )

--
JR

Kurt

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 3:05:14 PM6/28/07

to

In article <1183043447....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

Techies aside, finally a multi-function phone that everyone can easily
use. No other phone comes close for this.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 3:39:31 PM6/28/07

to

Kurt wrote:
> In article <

> Techies aside, finally a multi-function phone that everyone can easily
> use. No other phone comes close for this.
>

Bwahahaha....I'm always amazed at how people can be so easily
manipulated by the marketing droids. Hey dude, it's a phone, almost
all the smartphones i know (excluding windows mobile) have very easy
interfaces.

Reminds me of that NY reviewer who seems to think traffic reports on
google maps in iphone is so cool...hedy butthead. my wife's $49 Razr
phone does the exact same thing...it's a google map mobile feature!

* having hysterical fits at the sheep while writing on my opera mini.

ZnU

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 6:42:03 PM6/28/07

to

In article <1183059571.4...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Kurt wrote:
> > In article <
>
> > Techies aside, finally a multi-function phone that everyone can easily
> > use. No other phone comes close for this.
> >
>
> Bwahahaha....I'm always amazed at how people can be so easily
> manipulated by the marketing droids. Hey dude, it's a phone, almost
> all the smartphones i know (excluding windows mobile) have very easy
> interfaces.
>
> Reminds me of that NY reviewer who seems to think traffic reports on
> google maps in iphone is so cool...hedy butthead. my wife's $49 Razr
> phone does the exact same thing...it's a google map mobile feature!

Of course, the fact that so many regular people don't even know many of
the iPhone's features are available on other phones -- sometimes even
phones they already own -- tells you something fairly important right
there.

As I said in another thread, Apple's recent successes haven't been so
much about creating fundamentally new technologies, but about taking
existing technologies, making them palatable to people who aren't
tech-heads, and clearly presenting a compelling use case for them.

The iPhone appears to be a classic example of this. The ads make it
particularly blatant. How many other mobile phone ads have you seen that
walk the user through performing a real-world task? (Or even show the UI
at all?) How many phones have a UI that would lend itself to making such
ads?

> * having hysterical fits at the sheep while writing on my opera mini.

--
"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

Kurt

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 7:24:05 PM6/28/07

to

In article <1183059571.4...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Kurt wrote:
> > In article <
>
> > Techies aside, finally a multi-function phone that everyone can easily
> > use. No other phone comes close for this.
> >
>
> Bwahahaha....I'm always amazed at how people can be so easily
> manipulated by the marketing droids. Hey dude, it's a phone, almost
> all the smartphones i know (excluding windows mobile) have very easy
> interfaces.

BS- even the Treo semi-sucks. All the phones have considerable learning
curves.

> Reminds me of that NY reviewer who seems to think traffic reports on
> google maps in iphone is so cool...hedy butthead. my wife's $49 Razr
> phone does the exact same thing...it's a google map mobile feature!

>
> * having hysterical fits at the sheep while writing on my opera mini.

Great. Damn thing crashes on my Treo.
Google maps works fine. If they all could write stable programs...

Kurt

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 7:26:58 PM6/28/07

to

In article <znu-28277C.1...@individual.net>,
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1183059571.4...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> asjb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Kurt wrote:
> > > In article <
> >
> > > Techies aside, finally a multi-function phone that everyone can easily
> > > use. No other phone comes close for this.
> > >
> >
> > Bwahahaha....I'm always amazed at how people can be so easily
> > manipulated by the marketing droids. Hey dude, it's a phone, almost
> > all the smartphones i know (excluding windows mobile) have very easy
> > interfaces.
> >
> > Reminds me of that NY reviewer who seems to think traffic reports on
> > google maps in iphone is so cool...hedy butthead. my wife's $49 Razr
> > phone does the exact same thing...it's a google map mobile feature!
>
> Of course, the fact that so many regular people don't even know many of
> the iPhone's features are available on other phones -- sometimes even
> phones they already own -- tells you something fairly important right
> there.

Bingo. Add to that the ease of use. All the others fall flat on their
faces in this department.

Roedy Green

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 7:52:32 PM6/28/07

to

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:53:04 -0600, Oxford <colalo...@mac.com>
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>wow, already many apps / widgets for the iPhone and the thing doesn't
>ship for 55ish hours! expect 1000's of these in a few months... they
>really make apps on any other mobile phone obsolete!

I have five beefs with Apple over the iPhone.

1. they won't tell me what CPU it has.

2. they won't tell me the clock speed.

3. they won't tell me how much RAM it has.

4. It does not run Java and Steve Jobs spat on Java when asked about
support.

5. they artificially locked the device into AT & T even though A T & T
has one of the worst data networks.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com

Alan Baker

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 8:01:00 PM6/28/07

to

In article <fai883h0ct49q60ku...@4ax.com>,
Roedy Green <see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:53:04 -0600, Oxford <colalo...@mac.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
> >wow, already many apps / widgets for the iPhone and the thing doesn't
> >ship for 55ish hours! expect 1000's of these in a few months... they
> >really make apps on any other mobile phone obsolete!
>
> I have five beefs with Apple over the iPhone.
>
> 1. they won't tell me what CPU it has.

Why do you care?

>
> 2. they won't tell me the clock speed.

Why do you care?

>
> 3. they won't tell me how much RAM it has.

Why do you care?

>
> 4. It does not run Java and Steve Jobs spat on Java when asked about
> support.

"spat"? Please.

>
> 5. they artificially locked the device into AT & T even though A T & T
> has one of the worst data networks.

They did what was required to get the phone available.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

unread,

Jun 28, 2007, 11:02:30 PM6/28/07

to

"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post

tBZgi.4758$vi5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 6/28/07 6:52 PM:

Do we know that is the only feature? Not sure what others would depend on
the At&T though...

--
€ Deleting from a *Save* dialog is not a sign of well done design
€ A personal computer without an OS is crippled by that lacking
€ Web image alt-text shouldn't generally be "space", "left" or "right"

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 1:04:49 AM6/29/07

to

At 28 Jun 2007 18:11:32 -0700 ed wrote:

> word is that the iphone does not have any sort of carrier subsidy.
> given that, i don't know why they went with a att exclusive- why not
> just make it an unlocked gsm phone and let folks use it on whatever
> (gsm) network they want?

Because then Apple would lose the benefit of someone else (AT&T) wasting
their ad dollars hyping Apple's product. And the benefit of a carrier
selling it for them.

Also, Apple needed the carrier support of a lowish-priced data plan and
backend for the "Visual Voicemail" feature.

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

ed

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 2:53:07 AM6/29/07

to

"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:4684870e$0$16295$8826...@free.teranews.com...

> At 28 Jun 2007 18:11:32 -0700 ed wrote:
>
>> word is that the iphone does not have any sort of carrier subsidy.
>> given that, i don't know why they went with a att exclusive- why not
>> just make it an unlocked gsm phone and let folks use it on whatever
>> (gsm) network they want?
>
> Because then Apple would lose the benefit of someone else (AT&T) wasting
> their ad dollars hyping Apple's product.

given all the media hype, and jobs mastery of the media, i don't think
that's really an issue...

> And the benefit of a carrier
> selling it for them.

or maybe more carriers would have carried it...

> Also, Apple needed the carrier support of a lowish-priced data plan

i don't think edge is the main attraction of this phone, eh? :D

> and
> backend for the "Visual Voicemail" feature.

that's the one thing- seems like a relatively minor thing for an exclusive
carry.

and to counter all you points at once, rumors are that apple may go it alone
in europe... ;D

Sandman

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 3:28:09 AM6/29/07

to

In article <C2A9B2D5.85F2C%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
Snit <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> 9%Ygi.4752$vi5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net on 6/28/07 6:11 PM:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-7D22F...@news.telus.net...
> > <snip>
> >>> 5. they artificially locked the device into AT & T even though A T & T
> >>> has one of the worst data networks.
> >>
> >> They did what was required to get the phone available.
> >
> > word is that the iphone does not have any sort of carrier subsidy. given
> > that, i don't know why they went with a att exclusive- why not just make it
> > an unlocked gsm phone and let folks use it on whatever (gsm) network they
> > want?
> >
> Didn't Apple need the back end altered to make sure that their visual voice
> mail and the like worked? If so they had to work with carriers to make that
> happen.

Sure, but that could be a carrier-specific feature "only works on
cingular" sort of deal. No need to make the entire phone locked to
that carrier.

I don't know how these things usually work in the states, but it's
totally unheard of in Europe...

--
Sandman[.net]

Snit

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 3:38:26 AM6/29/07

to

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> stated in post
mr-72E9DF.09...@News.Individual.NET on 6/29/07 12:28 AM:

Rumor has it Apple went to Verizon first but could not get a deal to work -
Apple simply wants to change the game plan enough were not all providers are
willing to work with them. Apple is not just making a phone that is
different, they are - supposedly - making a whole "system" that is
different; how the phone is activated, how software is updated, how the
funding is split in the background, etc.

--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.

Mitch

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 5:14:57 AM6/29/07

to

In article <9%Ygi.4752$vi5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, ed
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

> word is that the iphone does not have any sort of carrier subsidy. given
> that, i don't know why they went with a att exclusive- why not just make it
> an unlocked gsm phone and let folks use it on whatever (gsm) network they
> want?
>

The reason is that Apple wanted significant changes made to the way the
carrier operates.
There are quite a few changes in the system, in features, and in the
way the device is recognized, and the options they give users.

Jobs likes to set a goal (about the way the device will operate, who it
will be directed to, etc.) and then stick to it. That means once his
team decided on features, they needed a carrier that would agree.

You may also have read that several European carriers were at least
annoyed with the requirements. That may just mean that they didn't like
being asked to make changes to the system to accommodate phone features
before. It might also reflect the differences in the way that US
carriers do business.

Mitch

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 9:30:16 AM6/29/07

to

In article <fai883h0ct49q60ku...@4ax.com>, Roedy Green
<see_w...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:

> I have five beefs with Apple over the iPhone.
>
> 1. they won't tell me what CPU it has.

Which matters how? If you have the SDK, you would be given specifics.

> 2. they won't tell me the clock speed.

Same -- if you had a reason to know, you'd check. If you are merely
curious, it's immaterial.

> 3. they won't tell me how much RAM it has.

No, I think they specified several things about this. They are
certainly clear about the space YOU are allowed to access.

> 4. It does not run Java and Steve Jobs spat on Java when asked about
> support.

Major exaggeration; and apparently, you're not willing to consider
anything like a reason.

> 5. they artificially locked the device into AT & T even though A T & T
> has one of the worst data networks.

Nothing 'artificial' about it; it's locked to the company they
partnered with. They did it to get the device made the way they wanted.
If they didn't, there wouldn't be any device.
Why do you have a problem with that? Sometimes, it's how things get
done!

Look, you know how music gets made? That's why people have to pay for
it -- because a lot of how musicians and performers are found and
developed and given the time and motivation to make music costs money
to do.

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 9:03:03 AM6/29/07

to

At 28 Jun 2007 23:53:07 -0700 ed wrote:

> > Also, Apple needed the carrier support of a lowish-priced data plan
>
> i don't think edge is the main attraction of this phone, eh? :D

Not EDGE specifically, but the thing would be next to useless without
mobile data.

> and to counter all you points at once, rumors are that apple may go it
alone in europe... ;D

Only if they have to- they'd rather get carrier support.

Oh, and I ogot to mention an important benefit- reportedly Apple gets a
cut of the monthly fees from AT&T!

Kurt

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 11:04:21 AM6/29/07

to

In article <F2Ygi.137$GW4...@newsfe12.lga>,

"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Roedy Green wrote:
> > 5. they artificially locked the device into AT & T even though A T & T
> > has one of the worst data networks.
>
> Lots of phones have single-network versions (my Treo 650, for example,
> is Cingular-only). That will take care of itself in time.

You can get your Treo unlocked by Cingular.

ZnU

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 11:32:22 AM6/29/07

to

In article <9%Ygi.4752$vi5...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:

My guess is that Jobs has sold AT&T on some more significant long-term
plan Apple has, and it'll take some time before we start to see that
seriously unfold.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 1:29:09 PM6/29/07

to

I cannot believe how CRIPPLED the iphone is in terms of what it CANNOT
do...a $49 phone can do more than this $500 toy!

Look at some of the apps that you can download FOR FREE for Java
(j2ME)-enabled devices:, which is most cells....

Games:
well, there are literally thousands of games, from simple ones to high-
end
3d games that are available to Java enabled cells. The iphones cannot
run a
single one of them!

Java.com featured mobile games:
http://www.java.com/en/games/mobile/index.jsp

mpowerplayer portal:
http://mpowerplayer.com/

One portal:
http://www.gamemobile.co.uk/

Chatting applications:
There are literally dozens of chatting, IM apps available that iphone
users
will not have access to....a couple examples:
Migg3
http://www.mig33.com/indexif.php

Mxitt
http://www.mxit.co.za/

Multimedia networking (send pics to your buddies)
Again, TONS of apps for free that the crippled iphone cannot use. A
couple
examples:

Shoot send
http://shootsend.com/vipera-shootsend-portal/

Reporo:
http://www.getjar.com/products/6459/ReporoFREETxtPicMsgsIMandmore

RSS feeds and widgets:
Mobispine
http://www.getjar.com/products/4162/MobispineFREEmobilemessengerblog

Nokia Widsets:
https://www.widsets.com/index

Plusmo:
http://plusmo.com/homepage/home.shtml

Litefeed:
http://www.litefeeds.com/

Portal apps:

Yahoo Go!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go

Mapping:
Oh, yeah, the same Google maps on iphone can actually run on $49
phones.
With traffic and everything...

Google Maps Mobile:
http://www.google.com/gmm/index.html

Wayfiner:
http://www.getjar.com/products/6172/WayfinerEarthBeta

Mail:
Again, tons of free mail clients...

Google Mail Mobile
http://www.google.com/intl/en/mobile/mail/index.html

Yahoo Go
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go

Flurry:
http://www.flurry.com/?r=gj

For the techies, it's not even close....there are java apps for remote
desktop use, FTP, terminal services, etc.

FTP clients
http://www.bermin.net/index.html

tenet/etc
http://j2me.ngphone.com/opensource/ssh.htm

remote desktop:
https://www.rdmplus.com/rdm/index.jsp

* Watering the garden (our tomatoes r doing really well!) while
writing on Opera Mini on my Nokia 9300.

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 6:35:42 PM6/29/07

to

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:08:38 -0000, asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:29:09 -0000, asjb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >I cannot believe how CRIPPLED the iphone is in terms of what it CANNOT
>> >do...a $49 phone can do more than this $500 toy!
>> >
>> >Look at some of the apps that you can download FOR FREE for Java
>> >(j2ME)-enabled devices:, which is most cells....
>> >
>> >Games:
>> >well, there are literally thousands of games, from simple ones to high-
>> >end
>> >3d games that are available to Java enabled cells. The iphones cannot
>> >run a
>> >single one of them!
>> >
>> >Java.com featured mobile games:
>> >http://www.java.com/en/games/mobile/index.jsp
>> >
>>
>>
>> Get real. Nobody wants an iPhone for gamesd (except maybe you)
>>
>> If you want portable games, go get a PSP2.
>>
>>
>> I had enough of JAVA games locking up my Motorola V600 or Sony W600i
>> or Sony T637 from downloadable JAVA games.
>
>Lame. Some macnut googling phone names and pretending he knows what
>the hell he's talking about.
>

I always know when I'm spot o, cause the other side starts insulting
me.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 8:36:34 PM6/29/07

to

On Jun 29, 6:35 pm, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> I always know when I'm spot o, cause the other side starts insulting
> me.

Then again, maybe it's because you really ARE an idiot.

karlkr...@sbcglobal.net

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 9:01:08 PM6/29/07

to

Go ahead and confirm my statement, but present no facts other than
your personal loveof simple JAVA games.

John W. Kennedy

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 9:37:11 PM6/29/07

to

Kurt wrote:
> In article <F2Ygi.137$GW4...@newsfe12.lga>,
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Roedy Green wrote:
>>> 5. they artificially locked the device into AT & T even though A T & T
>>> has one of the worst data networks.
>> Lots of phones have single-network versions (my Treo 650, for example,
>> is Cingular-only). That will take care of itself in time.
>
> You can get your Treo unlocked by Cingular.

As it happens, AT&T/Cingular has the best coverage in certain rural
areas where I need it. But it's not just locked; it's a
Cingular-specific model. Lots of high-end phones have carrier-specific
models.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 9:38:01 PM6/29/07

to

On Jun 29, 9:01 pm, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 00:36:34 -0000, asjbio...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Jun 29, 6:35 pm, karlkrand...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >> I always know when I'm spot o, cause the other side starts insulting
> >> me.
>
> >Then again, maybe it's because you really ARE an idiot.
>
> Go ahead and confirm my statement, but present no facts other than
> your personal loveof simple JAVA games.

Hey, I guess Macnuts really are masochist....if so, then you'll really
LOVE staring at your iphone for a few MINUTES while a web page
loads...LOL....

meanwhile, that same yahoo.com page that takes TWO MINUTES TO LOAD on
your iPhone takes 10 SECONDS on my Opera Mini java browser.

Btw, there ain't nothing simple about the work it takes to optimize
apps that may have to run on restricted environments, which is why I
admire them the hell more than I do simple sheep like you who sway to
the beck and call of the marketing droids.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 10:20:42 PM6/29/07

to

This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.

http://news.com.com/The+Apple+phone+flop/2010-1041_3-6141607.html

So, anyways, Apple is slated to come out with a new phone. Reports say
that it will have a slide-out keyboard, 4GB or 8GB of storage, and
work on CDMA or GSM cellular networks. It will start at $249 before
subscription rebates.

And it will largely fail.

Initially, of course, it won't look that way at all. As with any Apple
product release, it will be ushered into the world on a wave of
obligatory gushing. "It's the greatest advance in communication since
cave painting," some will proclaim. "Like Star Trek, but without the
clingy Qiana shirts."
The iPod looks like it may turn out to be a non-repeatable experience

It's predictable. If Apple got into medical devices, people would come
out of Steve Jobs' speech proclaiming "The iBag is the easiest, most
user-friendly colostomy device I've ever encountered."

Sales for the phone will skyrocket initially. However, things will
calm down, and the Apple phone will take its place on the shelves with
the random video cameras, cell phones, wireless routers and other
would-be hits. Remember the Mac Mini? It was supposed to ignite a
revolution for small computers. It didn't. The flat-panel iMac? Some
predicted that Apple's price tag would drive other prices higher.
Whoops.

Why won't the Apple phone succeed? It will be a great piece of
hardware that, if I wasn't the cheapest man in North America, I might
buy. The entire strategy, however, is based on what I call "iPod
magic." Apple succeeded with the iPod, the theory goes. Therefore,
they can break into other categories and turn them upside down.

Single shot?
But the iPod looks like it may turn out to be a non-repeatable
experience. Look at the historical record. When the iPod emerged in
late 2001, it solved some major problems with MP3 players. At the
time, such music devices came either equipped with a nominal amount of
flash memory--like 64MB or 128MB--or a large 2.5-inch hard drive.
Sony, the once-king of portable music, remained in love with portable
CD players.

Apple opted to adopt the 1.8-inch hard drive, a piece of hardware
spurned by other manufacturers. That was the world's mistake. The 1.8-
inch drive let Apple put a huge amount of storage--the real problem
with MP3 players--into a small form factor. The first iPod sported 5GB
of storage, or nearly 40 times as much as the upper crust of flash
players. The company even locked up supply of 1.8-inch drives for a
while, so no one could copy it.

The iPod also conquered the problem of small screens and cheesy
navigation. With its newfound popularity, the company was also able to
get music publishers to agree to its terms.

Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset
business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they
are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a
Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the
device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people
are addicted to it.

Kurt

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 10:31:57 PM6/29/07

to

In article <1183170042.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
> any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
> CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
>

LOL I'd love to repost this 6 months from now.
We'll see how good your spinning skills are.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 11:25:17 PM6/29/07

to

On Jun 29, 10:31 pm, Kurt <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1183170042.641138.221...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

>
> asjbio...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
> > any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
> > CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
>
> LOL I'd love to repost this 6 months from now.
> We'll see how good your spinning skills are.
>

Perhaps you'd like to post valid arguments instead of vacuous taunts
to the writer of the article.

Since the iPhone has absolutely no application capability, no IM, no
email integration capabilities, and not even the ability to edit
documents or spreadsheets or powerpoint presentations, it
automatically won't affect the business smartphone market (thus, the
fact that Rim Blackberry shares went up by $34 today).

Since it does not play any of the thousands of consumer Java games and
apps (IM, messaging, picture sharing, social networking, etc) already
in the market today, it is also a crippled CONSUMER phones.

In other words, it's a pretty GUI with nothing underneath.

gimme_this...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 11:56:49 PM6/29/07

to

You're on the wrong track.

Most iPhone users have laptops. These aren't reasons not to buy an
iPhone.

Just wait for Apple's ultra slim MacBooks to come out.

John

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 11:56:58 PM6/29/07

to

<asjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183170042.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at the
Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not limited
to techies.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 12:06:58 AM6/30/07

to

On Jun 29, 11:56 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <asjbio...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at the
> Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not limited
> to techies.

J6P can't afford it....most people want a less than $100 phone.

It's actually pretty freaking funny when delusional macnuts here say
apple will "dominate" the cellphone industry...HELLLO????? There are
like 1 BILLION phones sold every year (forecast for iphone next year:
10 million), most growth being in Asia (esp China), where people
couldn't care less what an iPhone is, and where the most advanced
phones put the iPhone to shame because they are cool AND actually can
play games and applications..

Even in USA, there was actually a survey done that showed high
recognition of the iPhone, but when pressed about whether they would
consider BUYING it, a pretty low number said yes (I'll have to dig up
this stat).

Sure, it'll sell a lot, but the iPhone is never going to be as
successful as the iPod, as clearly elucidated by that writer.

And btw, there were like 10 people in the AT&T store near me. Not
exactly overwhelming numbers there...even a raving mac guy interviewed
in detroit said he was surprised there weren't more people in line.

John

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 12:09:35 AM6/30/07

to

<asjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183176418.1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Joe Sixpack may not be able to afford it but hundreds of them were pulling
out their credit cards because THEY WANTED IT SO BAD. It will become
another "iPod" for Apple. No doubt!!!

John

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 12:10:56 AM6/30/07

to

<asjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183176418.1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

ATT Store got only a few phones(37 at my local store!) and told people that
only a few would be avialable. Each Apple Store GOT THOUSANDS!!!

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 11:54:26 PM6/29/07

to

At 29 Jun 2007 17:35:42 -0500 karlkr...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> I always know when I'm spot o, cause the other side starts insulting
> me.

Using that as your evidence, you must be right virtually all of the time...

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 12:31:23 AM6/30/07

to

At 30 Jun 2007 03:25:17 +0000 asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> Since the iPhone has absolutely no application capability, no IM, no
> email integration capabilities, and not even the ability to edit
> documents or spreadsheets or powerpoint presentations, it
> automatically won't affect the business smartphone market (thus, the
> fact that Rim Blackberry shares went up by $34 today).

Don't confuse hardware with software. Just because Apple didn't include
such things doesn't mean they can't add them if the unit doesn't live up
to expectations.

Hell, they could add an office suite to the same hardware and sell it as
the "iPhone Pro" for $100-200 more!

> Since it does not play any of the thousands of consumer Java games and
> apps (IM, messaging, picture sharing, social networking, etc) already
> in the market today, it is also a crippled CONSUMER phones.

Again, it's one JVM away from running your precious java apps. I use a
Windows Mobile phone from T-Mo, who left Java support off intentionally,
for whatever reason. I installed Intent's Midlet Manager eventually,
then realized there's no java app I really require (WM has native software
that works better for most tasks) so I removed the JVM to save storage
memory.

Java is great for "feature phones" with proprietary OSes, but WM, Palm or
Symbian phones get along fine without Java apps, as will the iPhone.
But, again, there's nothing inherently "java-incompatible" about the
iPhone except that Apple didn't deem such support necessary. If it's a
barrier to sales, they can squeeze out a JVM download if/when necessary.

> In other words, it's a pretty GUI with nothing underneath.

I'd say all of the "essentials" are there right out of the box. I'd wait
and see how this "widget" thing goes before shi--ing all over it's
expandability.

I have nothing against the iPhone except that it really brings nothing
new to cellphones except slick marketing and a pretty GUI.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 12:56:03 AM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 12:31 am, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com>
wrote:

> Java is great for "feature phones" with proprietary OSes, but WM, Palm or
> Symbian phones get along fine without Java apps, as will the iPhone.
> But, again, there's nothing inherently "java-incompatible" about the
> iPhone except that Apple didn't deem such support necessary. If it's a
> barrier to sales, they can squeeze out a JVM download if/when necessary.

All Symbian and Linux phones have Java built-in (go to Symbian blogs
and most of the apps they talk about are Java apps), as does many new
Windows Mobile phones. The Blackberry is 100% Java. Most feature
phones also have it. The only exception in USA is Verizon, which has
Brew as the alternative.

As to apps, if you don't have Java, you lose out on the vast majority
of games and apps out there, which is why if you go to Windows Mobile
forums (especially when they first came out with no JVM) you kept
getting people trying to install it, a very funny situation since the
Microsoft people in there kept disparaging it anyways. I also find it
amusing to see windows mobile people keep installing Opera Mini or
Google Maps Mobile while others try to get them to switch. How's
Microsoft's Compact Dotnet Framework btw? LOL....

As to the iPhone, it's a useless pretty thing that is like a high-
priced hooker who just sits there doing nothing. Nice to look at, but
helpless in a pitch.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 1:33:56 AM6/30/07

to

For something that is supposed to revolutionize an entire industry and
dominate it, there were some tepid lines today....i dunno, like a
survey found, it's just way too expensive for most people....

I was at a mall in jersey at about 330 pm, and there were only like 25
people in the apple store and about 10 in the AT&T upstairs...not
exactly "wow" numbers...

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2007/06/report-iphones-.html
Report: IPhones Abundant. Lines Were Pointless.

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/news/449187,5_1_WA29_IPHONE_S1.article

With less than 12 hours until the vaunted iPhone was to be unleashed
on a waiting world, the sign posted outside the AT&T store on Grand
Avenue Thursday night was more about anticipation than reality.

"iPhone Line Begins Here. Thank You."

Number of people in line as of 9:15 p.m. -- two.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/UPDATE/706290424/1013

Outside the AT&T store in Birmingham, Justin Dennis, 21, of Bloomfield
Hills showed up at 1 a.m. to be first in line. He didn't need to get
there so early. By 7 a.m., he was ahead of only two others who had
showed up to wait for the new product to go on sale.

Dennis set up his blue canvas folding chair outside the store to mark
his spot and tried to sleep. But eventually, he retired to his pickup
truck for slumber.

"I'm surprised there aren't more people," he said groggily early this
morning.

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.journal-news.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/06/30/hjn063007iphoneswg.html

At 4:45 p.m. at an AT&T store in West Chester Twp., about a dozen
people sat on the sidewalk waiting for the doors to open. An employee
teased the crowd by holding an iPhone up to the window, at which
several people moaned and laughed.

An hour later at an AT&T store off of Fields Ertel Road in Cincinnati,
Brian Macke of Clifton said, "The lines are not as bad as I thought."
He said the wait for the iPhone was much less intense than the wait
for the Xbox 360, for which he "slept in a shopping cart in the snow."

-----------------------------------------------------------

http://wonkette.com/politics/dept'-of-corrupt-geeks/dc-mayor-gets-his-iphones-delivered-suck-it-philadelphia-273911.php

Incidentally, while we were in line, we found out that the Apple
stores in Nova and Maryland had plenty of stock and no lines.

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 1:59:34 AM6/30/07

to

At 30 Jun 2007 04:56:03 +0000 asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Java is great for "feature phones" with proprietary OSes, but WM,
> > Palm or
> > Symbian phones get along fine without Java apps, as will the iPhone.
> > But, again, there's nothing inherently "java-incompatible" about the
> > iPhone except that Apple didn't deem such support necessary. If it's
> > a barrier to sales, they can squeeze out a JVM download if/when
> >necessary.
>
> All Symbian and Linux phones have Java built-in (go to Symbian blogs
> and most of the apps they talk about are Java apps), as does many new
> Windows Mobile phones.

True- I never said they didn't- I just tend to prefer "native apps."
Nothing against Java, but running a VM on a device is like running a DOS
program on a Windows PC- you can do it, if there's no alternative, but
running a "real" Windows program is usually preferable.

> As to apps, if you don't have Java, you lose out on the vast majority
> of games and apps out there, which is why if you go to Windows Mobile
> forums (especially when they first came out with no JVM) you kept
> getting people trying to install it, a very funny situation since the
> Microsoft people in there kept disparaging it anyways.

I've used it, it works fine, but it's, at least for me, fairly unnecessary.

> I also find it
> amusing to see windows mobile people keep installing Opera Mini or
> Google Maps Mobile while others try to get them to switch.

I'm amused as well, since Google's GMM for Windows Mobile works better
than the Java version, and Opera makes a better native browser for
Windows (Opera Mobile) that doesn't have the inherent security problem of
running all of my data through their proxy.

I find equally amusing that the two examples you came up with, which can
easily be considered two of the "killer apps" for java, exist in superior
native versions. Why should I run either program in a VM? It'd be
like running a Nintendo game on my PC in a emulator rather than simply
using the PC port of it!

> How's
> Microsoft's Compact Dotnet Framework btw? LOL....

Beats me, I could care less- I'm a user, not a developer. No program I
use has required me to install it, so my installed programs are either
using whatever version is already built into my MDA's ROM, or they don't
need it.

> As to the iPhone, it's a useless pretty thing that is like a high-
> priced hooker who just sits there doing nothing. Nice to look at, but
> helpless in a pitch.

I assume you meant "pinch."

Most of us, at least those of us old enough to have graduated beyond Game
Boys, get along fine without Java games.

I agree the iPhone is overpriced for what it offers, but it has a media
player, a camera, a browser, and e-mail. A decent feature set even
without the ability to play "Lemonade Tycoon."

There are plenty of reasons not to buy an iPhone, IMO, but lack of java
support isn't one of them. Java (for mobile phones) serves the same
purpose as Apple's browser Widgets- a way to develop for a device whose
manufacturer won't let you see what's behind the curtain.

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

karlkr...@sbcglobal.net

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 4:00:59 AM6/30/07

to

100's of thpusands of iPhones got sold.

Even the tiny Alvin, TX AT&T store had a long line by 5 PM.

Nationwide they sold so many iPhones that the AT&T computers got
hammered and couldn't keep up with all the activations they had to
perform.

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1190611&page=1&pp=15

karlkr...@sbcglobal.net

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 4:03:30 AM6/30/07

to

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:20:42 -0700, asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

>This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
>any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
>CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
>
>http://news.com.com/The+Apple+phone+flop/2010-1041_3-6141607.html
>
>So, anyways,

Go ahead and biolate copyright by posting this nonsense.

Apple sold 100's pf thousands of iPhones, and then AT&Ts computers
couldnt keep up with Activations.

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1190611&page=1&pp=15

karlkr...@sbcglobal.net

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 4:05:01 AM6/30/07

to

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:25:17 -0000, asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Jun 29, 10:31 pm, Kurt <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <1183170042.641138.221...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> asjbio...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > This guy nailed it, although I think the iphone will just become like
>> > any other smartphone as opposed to an outright flop, albeit a lot more
>> > CRIPPLED because you actually can't do anything with it.
>>
>> LOL I'd love to repost this 6 months from now.
>> We'll see how good your spinning skills are.
>>
>
>
>Perhaps you'd like to post valid arguments instead of vacuous taunts
>to the writer of the article.
>

You're the one who posts insults when someone posts links proving what
a resounding success iPhone is.

http://www.engadget.com

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 8:57:35 AM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 1:59 am, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> > All Symbian and Linux phones have Java built-in (go to Symbian blogs
> > and most of the apps they talk about are Java apps), as does many new
> > Windows Mobile phones.
>
> True- I never said they didn't- I just tend to prefer "native apps."
> Nothing against Java, but running a VM on a device is like running a DOS
> program on a Windows PC- you can do it, if there's no alternative, but
> running a "real" Windows program is usually preferable.

lol....Notice I never said that Java is somehow superior to native
apps for end-users in PCs.

To a consumer end user, there usually isn't (and should not be) any
difference.between the two (Since we're talking PCs, the fact is that
the some of most popular desktop apps are java apps - Limewire and
Azureus, to name two, although I agree Java on desktops has faltered,
unlike in server and mobiles, where it is strongly dominant).

The advantage overall is that to developers Java is a superior
development platform in general than creating native apps in terms of
ease of development, range of target markets, and safety.

> I'm amused as well, since Google's GMM for Windows Mobile works better
> than the Java version, and Opera makes a better native browser for
> Windows (Opera Mobile) that doesn't have the inherent security problem of
> running all of my data through their proxy.

Uh...DUH...since Google Maps Mobile for Windows (and also the Palm
version) was developed SPECIFICALLY for windows mobiles and Palms, I
would rather hope that it is somehow better than an app that was
developed for several hundred different models of cells, including
phones that have barely any memory. Please think before opening mouth,
it helps save spit.

You actually highlighted a FEATURE of java, not a disadvantage. The
ability to be able to write to an enormous range of devices and thus
blanket a market.

As to Opera Mobile, LOL, that must be the reason why so many users are
flocking to Opera Mini away from Opera Mobile (and all the Windows
Mobile browsers)...again, the speed of Opera Mini because of the
superior architecture is what makes the difference. The user honestly
does not care about anything else, whether the app is native or java
or whatever, so long as it renders their pages quickly and correctly
(and Opera Mini continues to improve leaps and bounds after every
version release on this score).

>Beats me, I could care less- I'm a user, not a developer. No program I
>use has required me to install it, so my installed programs are either
>using whatever version is already built into my MDA's ROM, or they don't
>need it.

Like i said, too bad you don't represent several billion other people
on this planet. I honestly don't give an owl's fart about what you do
or do not prefer. All I care about is that there is a huge target
market for my apps.

PS. CF dotnet was Microsoft's answer to Java ME...didn't do very
well ,,,ROTFLOL....

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 1:06:07 PM6/30/07

to

dude, i that $19 plan is a standard...that's what i have.

William Michael Greene

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 1:20:24 PM6/30/07

to

<asjb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183223167....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Then that is almost what you will pay for the data plan for the iPhone. $1
more.It will not be in addition to what you are paying for the data package
now.

I think if people hate the iPhone so much, don't get one. Why bother
spending time putting down the phone and people wanting one. Just be happy
with what you have and leave others alone.
'Oh well, I guess people have to have a cause to champion" .

It's just beyond me why people have to complain as if they are forced to get
one.

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 2:07:38 PM6/30/07

to

At 30 Jun 2007 05:57:35 -0700 asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> lol....Notice I never said that Java is somehow superior to native
> apps for end-users in PCs.

Yet you bash a phone for not supporting Java, even when it has it's own
apps available. Java is great for when there's no other alternative.
With more advanced phones it's basically a low-end phone emulator.

> To a consumer end user, there usually isn't (and should not be) any
> difference.between the two

Sure there is- there's yet another "layer" between the code and the
processor running it, which slows it down, or limits it's access to the
device's resources.

> (Since we're talking PCs,

Not really- I just used them as an analogy...

>the fact is that
> the some of most popular desktop apps are java apps - Limewire and
> Azureus, to name two,

Your dictionary must have a different definition of "popular" than mine.

"Word" is a popular desktop app- "Photoshop" is a popular desktop app.
BT clients don't really crack the top 50.

> although I agree Java on desktops has faltered,
> unlike in server and mobiles, where it is strongly dominant).

It's only dominant where there's no other realistic choice- there are too
many phones with proprietary OSes to develop for each one separately .

> The advantage overall is that to developers Java is a superior
> development platform in general than creating native apps in terms of
> ease of development, range of target markets, and safety.

Easier for YOU as a developer, but it results in a slower, less-
fulfilling app for the end-user. Again, that's fine for when there's no
other choice, like with a typical mobile, but why would I want to run an
app inside a VM on a Palm or WinMo device where native apps are available
to do the same job better or faster? Putting java on the iPhone would be
a marketing disaster- why "admit" the $600 iPhone has the same software
availability as a free Nokia 6030?

> > I' amused as well, since Google's GMM for Windows Mobile works better

> > than the Java version, and Opera makes a better native browser for
> > Windows (Opera Mobile) that doesn't have the inherent security
problem of
> > running all of my data through their proxy.
>
> Uh...DUH...since Google Maps Mobile for Windows (and also the Palm
> version) was developed SPECIFICALLY for windows mobiles and Palms, I
> would rather hope that it is somehow better than an app that was
> developed for several hundred different models of cells, including
> phones that have barely any memory. Please think before opening mouth,
> it helps save spit.

I'm not the one who's touting Java as the ultimate feature of a
cellphone, or implying it's the iPhone's achille's heel. If iPhone's
widgets accomplish the same task, end users won't care if it's Java or not.

> You actually highlighted a FEATURE of java, not a disadvantage.

Sometimes they're the same thing- backwards compatibilty is what held
back PCs for years- the DOS 640k limits, etc.

> The
> ability to be able to write to an enormous range of devices and thus
> blanket a market.

Just like with a BASIC interpreter in the 70's! How many "bestselling
programs" were written in BASIC?

> As to Opera Mobile, LOL, that must be the reason why so many users are
> flocking to Opera Mini away from Opera Mobile (and all the Windows
> Mobile browsers)...again, the speed of Opera Mini because of the
> superior architecture is what makes the difference.

It's not the "superior architecture" of Mini- it's the Opera servers
doing all the work! Some employers might not like having their data
funnelled through Opera! Opera Mini is really only widely used on WinMo
because it's free, and the best alternative on non-touchscreen devices
that can't run Mobile or Netfront.

> The user honestly
> does not care about anything else, whether the app is native or java
> or whatever, so long as it renders their pages quickly and correctly
> (and Opera Mini continues to improve leaps and bounds after every
> version release on this score).

I'm glad you're happy with it. I'll stick with Opera Mobile. Mini can't
render a corporate website I require access to for work, whereas Mobile
can. I don't have a choice (other than drag a laptop around with me!)

> >Beats me, I could care less- I'm a user, not a developer. No program I
> >use has required me to install it, so my installed programs are either
> >using whatever version is already built into my MDA's ROM, or they
don't
> >need it.
>
> Like i said, too bad you don't represent several billion other people
> on this planet.

I don't, because my phone runs a better OS. Java's for RAZRs and Nokia
series 40 phones.

> I honestly don't give an owl's fart about what you do
> or do not prefer.

Really? I sometimes lie awake at night worried about your preferences...

> All I care about is that there is a huge target
> market for my apps.

Which proves your concern about the iPhone's lack of Java support is more
about your needs, not the needs of iPhone users. Thanks for clearing
that up for us!

>
> PS. CF dotnet was Microsoft's answer to Java ME...didn't do very
> well ,,,ROTFLOL....

You seem to be the only one here "LOL"ing at yourself.

Again, I'm not a developer, so it's not my problem- it's yours. Good
luck porting your apps to Safari widgets. As of today, there's
apparently a new market of a few hundred thousand phone users you have
nothing to sell to...

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 4:18:01 PM6/30/07

to

Todd AllcockNoBalls wrote:
> Yet you bash a phone for not supporting Java, even when it has it's own
> apps available.

actually i bash phones that are so crippled they cannot take advantage
of the largest library of apps out there.

>Java is great for when there's no other alternative.

must be news to all those large companies who are heavily java like
google, ebay, and probably 80% of all financial institutions in the
world. The nasdaq is even moving to real time java...

> yet another "layer" between the code and the
> processor running it, which slows it down, or limits it's access to the
> device's resources.

there are both benefits and disadvantages to that obviously. and yet
there are many studiesthat show java surpassing even C++ in speed.

>
Your dictionary must have a different definition of "popular" than
mine.
>

hello??? i suggest getting off ur ass and looking them up because
they are two of the most popular apps out there, more so than
photoshop in terms of usage.

> there are too
> many phones with proprietary OSes to develop for each one separately .

hey, no kidding allcock and noballs. that's what it was meant for....a
way to write across devices.

> Easier for YOU as a developer, but it results in a slower, less-
> fulfilling app for the end-user.

1. it's better for all because the market for apps becomes very large
and consumers get lots of choice.

2. Please show me some studies that indicate large consumer
dissatisfaction. in fact, i can show u a hell lot more people
complaining about windows mobile in general than their apps.

> app inside a VM on a Palm or WinMo device where native apps are available

hey ballsie, maybe it's because there are not that many native apps
available? Is it our fault windows on mobiles are so niche that not
that many write to it? maybe if the phones actually didn't crash every
minute running native apps more peopl would use it.

> why "admit" the $600 iPhone has the same software
> availability as a free Nokia 6030?

hey cockhead, maybe because THEN it would NOT run much LESS apps than
free phones?

>the iPhone's achille's heel. If iPhone's
> widgets accomplish the same task, end users won't care if it's Java or no

ayah, ballcock, seen any 3d widget games lately? any IM widgets on
phones?

>
> Just like with a BASIC interpreter in the 70's! How many "bestselling
> programs" were written in BASIC?

hey mr ballcock, u do know there are more than desktop apps nowadays
right? and btw, java runs on more than 3.5 billion devices today, from
set top boxes and tivos, to blu ray high definition discs, to SIM
cards on ur phone and the security and health cards of the US military
and several entire countries, to servers running the biggest
businesses today hell more than basic in the 70s....

> I don't, because my phone runs a better OS. Java's for RAZRs and Nokia
> series 40 phones.

then i suggest telling that to the tons of users on high end nokia and
windows and linux phones running java apps. like i said, i don't give
a ballcock what u want or don't want. the market says differently.
lol.

btw, i wouldn't call an unstable os like windows mobile a "better os"
than pretty muc.h any other os out there.

> You seem to be the only one here "LOL"ing at yourself.
>

i'm lolling at u, mr cock and no balls.lol

>Good
> luck porting your apps to Safari widgets. As of today, there's
> apparently a new market of a few hundred thousand phone users you have
> nothing to sell to...

you ever heard of webapps? iphone users will just have to make do with
less feature-laden html i guess they'll just have to wait several
minutes for the pages to show up....

* getting ready to watch movie while tapping on my opera mini

ed

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 4:18:43 PM6/30/07

to

"Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:46868fdc$0$16386$8826...@free.teranews.com...

> At 30 Jun 2007 05:57:35 -0700 asjb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> lol....Notice I never said that Java is somehow superior to native
>> apps for end-users in PCs.
>
> Yet you bash a phone for not supporting Java, even when it has it's own
> apps available. Java is great for when there's no other alternative.
> With more advanced phones it's basically a low-end phone emulator.

even with more advanced phones, it's good to have java available, because
the app you want may not have a native version available. for example, with
the iphone, the native google maps app is obviously the prefereable choice-
however, on the same phone, the java gmail app *would* be a much better
choice than the web based mobile gmail, but it's not an option, and there's
also no native version.

<snip>

karlkr...@sbcglobal.net

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 5:10:45 PM6/30/07

to

AT&T stores are just about all sold out now. All 1800 of them

Mitch

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 5:37:57 PM6/30/07

to

In article <labolide-DC59FC...@news.giganews.com>, Kurt
<labo...@spacegmail.com> wrote:

> > Perhaps you'd like to post valid arguments instead of vacuous taunts
> > to the writer of the article.
> >
> > Since the iPhone has absolutely no application capability, no IM, no
> > email integration capabilities, and not even the ability to edit
> > documents or spreadsheets or powerpoint presentations, it
> > automatically won't affect the business smartphone market (thus, the
> > fact that Rim Blackberry shares went up by $34 today).
> >
> > Since it does not play any of the thousands of consumer Java games and
> > apps (IM, messaging, picture sharing, social networking, etc) already
> > in the market today, it is also a crippled CONSUMER phones.
> >
> > In other words, it's a pretty GUI with nothing underneath.
>
> Bwaaaaa..

I like this guy's criticism of 'vacuous taunts' -- and then 9 (!)
silly and exaggerated taunts of the device.

He is totally wrong about not integrating e-mail, which shows just how
informed he is.
He notes, oddly, that it cannot edit a spreadsheet. He doesn't seem to
be aware that reading a file is the most important function.
He foolishly ignores all the included apps just to cite that it won't
play someone else's programs. (So what? It has the major apps already!)
He (extremely foolishly) suggests it has nothing underneath this pretty
GUI. Everyone who has heard anything about it knows that isn't true --
every single demonstration shows it doing stuff.

Apparently, for this guy, Apple's apps and designs just aren't ever
enough. He must be a Windows or Linux user, trained to think he needs
to fix everything to get basic operations out of it.

Mitch

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 5:54:56 PM6/30/07

to

In article <46868fdc$0$16386$8826...@free.teranews.com>, Todd Allcock
<elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> > Like i said, too bad you don't represent several billion other people
> > on this planet.

Neither does ANYTHING you have ever said.
Let's not get stupid -- at the very very highest, you MAY be talking
about a few million potential users.
NEVER "several billion," dummy.

> > All I care about is that there is a huge target
> > market for my apps.

Aha; you aren't criticizing what you perceive as a real missing feature
for users, then. You're just annoyed that everyone doesn't make more
customers for YOU.
Well, since that has been the case in every industry for all time, you
get no sympathy at all.

> > PS. CF dotnet was Microsoft's answer to Java ME...didn't do very
> > well ,,,ROTFLOL....

It doesn't take much to entertain the simple.
No, .Net was not an answer to Java. That's not just an
oversimplification, it's a foolish conclusion.

> As of today, there's
> apparently a new market of a few hundred thousand phone users you have
> nothing to sell to...

And rather than do some work, he's going to whine about it and tell
people that Apple screwed up.
Even though he never had any reason to assume phone makers would always
support Java, he's going to pretend everyone has that obligation.
Apparently, if it makes sense to him, it's stupid for anyone else to
decide otherwise.

Sounds like a lot of Windows users in here. They accept it, many others
do, and therefore it must be good enough and good enough for everybody.

Kurt

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 6:41:39 PM6/30/07

to

In article <1183223167....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

For PDA, not Smartphone.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 7:39:44 PM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 6:41 pm, Kurt <labol...@spacegmail.com> wrote:
> > dude, i that $19 plan is a standard...that's what i have.
>
> For PDA, not Smartphone.
>

let me go more slowly...i have a smartphone (a nokia 9300)....i also
have that $19.99 plan, just like you do with your, well, "semi-
smartphone".

Btw, just watched Die Hard 4...Nokias were everywhere, including my
own phone, which was used by the lead hacker...see, you can actually
type almost as fast as on a regular keyboard using the large qwerty on
this phone (no stupid glass screen here), then slip it into your
pocket. Plus, it's rock solid as a brick (and looks like one as well),
so you can take it out and take out some bad guys when the need
arises ;-)

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/mobilephones/0,1000000685,39166028,00.htm

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 7:48:27 PM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 5:54 pm, Mitch <m...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> In article <46868fdc$0$16386$88260...@free.teranews.com>, Todd Allcock

>
> <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> > > Like i said, too bad you don't represent several billion other people
> > > on this planet.
>
> Neither does ANYTHING you have ever said.
> Let's not get stupid -- at the very very highest, you MAY be talking
> about a few million potential users.
> NEVER "several billion," dummy.

what about the word "potential" don't you get, butthead?

>
> > > PS. CF dotnet was Microsoft's answer to Java ME...didn't do very
> > > well ,,,ROTFLOL....
>
> It doesn't take much to entertain the simple.
> No, .Net was not an answer to Java. That's not just an
> oversimplification, it's a foolish conclusion.

uh-huh...sureeee.....let the little pony have his little day in the
sun....

>
> > As of today, there's
> > apparently a new market of a few hundred thousand phone users you have
> > nothing to sell to...
>
> And rather than do some work, he's going to whine about it and tell
> people that Apple screwed up.
> Even though he never had any reason to assume phone makers would always
> support Java, he's going to pretend everyone has that obligation.
> Apparently, if it makes sense to him, it's stupid for anyone else to
> decide otherwise.

Like i said, it's called a "webapp"..it ain't pretty and ain't
powerful, and it won't work for all apps, but hey, we're not going to
tear our hairs out trying to learn to create little teeny weenie
widgets. Like i said, the great thing about java is that you can reach
the largest number of potential audience for any mobile platform out
there, whether it be linux phones in the fastest growing cell markets
in asia, or Symbian phones in Europe, or the multitudes of feature
phones and smartphones here.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 7:54:11 PM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 4:18 pm, "ed" <n...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> for example, with
> the iphone, the native google maps app is obviously the prefereable choice-
> however, on the same phone, the java gmail app *would* be a much better
> choice than the web based mobile gmail, but it's not an option, and there's
> also no native version.
>
> <snip>

someone who actually makes sense here...and an interesting comment.

i can access gmail using both the browser and google's Gmail Mobile, a
simple Java app, but always use the app. Why? because it's heck more
easy and fast to use the app than to use the webapp on browser.

The environment on a mini device is quite different than desktops,
where very large screens, immobile situations, and large keyboards are
in contrast to smaller screens, mobile situations, and small
keyboards. Using the java app is significantly easier and faster to
use than the browser based webapp. Less scrolling, less button
pushing, and cleaner interfaces.

ZnU

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 8:19:03 PM6/30/07

to

In article <1183170042.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

> Apple opted to adopt the 1.8-inch hard drive, a piece of hardware
> spurned by other manufacturers. That was the world's mistake. The 1.8-
> inch drive let Apple put a huge amount of storage--the real problem
> with MP3 players--into a small form factor. The first iPod sported 5GB
> of storage, or nearly 40 times as much as the upper crust of flash
> players. The company even locked up supply of 1.8-inch drives for a
> while, so no one could copy it.

There were other hard drive based music players, some of which even had
more features than iPods. This was a necessary component for the iPod's
success, but it doesn't explain it.

> The iPod also conquered the problem of small screens and cheesy
> navigation. With its newfound popularity, the company was also able to
> get music publishers to agree to its terms.
>
> Unfortunately for Apple, problems like that don't exist in the handset
> business. Cell phones aren't clunky, inadequate devices. Instead, they
> are pretty good. Really good. Why do you think they call it a
> Crackberry? Because the lumpy design and confusing interface of the
> device is causing people to break into cars? No, it's because people
> are addicted to it.

Some current cell phones are not *physically* clunky. (Though many smart
phones are) However, the *software* on them is extremely clunky. The
author of this article just mentioned that better navigation was one of
the iPod's major advantages... why does he not understand that the same
thing will be even more true with a more complex device?

Also notable is a complete lack of discussion in this article of the
fact that the iPhone *is* an iPod. If you're looking for a phone that
doubles as a music player, all of the iPod's advantages count for the
iPhone. This is going to be a significant selling point.

--
"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

ZnU

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 8:25:11 PM6/30/07

to

In article <1183176418.1...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jun 29, 11:56 pm, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > <asjbio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > The iPhone will be a tremendous success based on what I saw tonight at the
> > Apple and ATT stores. Joe Sixpack wants it. Its appeal is not limited
> > to techies.
>
> J6P can't afford it....most people want a less than $100 phone.

Yes, I'm sure it's completely impossible that Apple could have long term
plans to introduced a range of products, some with lower price points. I
mean, it's not like they did exactly that with the iPod, or anything.

[snip]

> Sure, it'll sell a lot, but the iPhone is never going to be as
> successful as the iPod, as clearly elucidated by that writer.

As a percentage of the market, this is probably true, simply because of
restricted consumer choice in the cell phone market relative to the
music player market (carrier deals, contracts, etc.) and the sheer size
of the market.

In terms of revenue, however, the iPhone could do better than the iPod.

> And btw, there were like 10 people in the AT&T store near me. Not
> exactly overwhelming numbers there...even a raving mac guy interviewed
> in detroit said he was surprised there weren't more people in line.

I was at the Fifth Ave. Apple store in NYC today. Apple is selling these
things at a very good clip. A news program I heard tonight had some
analyst saying they could sell a million in the first week.

asjb...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 8:52:00 PM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 8:25 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> I was at the Fifth Ave. Apple store in NYC today. Apple is selling these
> things at a very good clip. A news program I heard tonight had some
> analyst saying they could sell a million in the first week.

The apple stores are selling ok (but hardly in great numbers, at least
here in jersey), but not the AT&T stores, and guess what? there's hell
lot more AT&T stores than apple stores...

The projection was actually 200,000 in the first 2 days or so...now
i'm not so sure they can make that given the short lines in areas
other than NY or some west coast cities. Probably if they count online
sales as part of that, but then again you can't count that unless
they're shipped.

Btw, analysts are saying all kinds of things...the projection for the
first 2 days or so is a low of 50K units to a high of 200k units.

Todd Allcock

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 2:22:09 PM6/30/07

to

At 30 Jun 2007 09:45:58 -0700 Kurt wrote:

> iPhone data plan alone saves you $720 for 2 years over the standard PDA
> data plan.

Except it isn't a PDA!

> You've paid for your phone with this savings.

And maybe have enough left over to buy a PDA!>

ZnU

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 8:58:10 PM6/30/07

to

In article <1183251120.1...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
asjb...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jun 30, 8:25 pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > I was at the Fifth Ave. Apple store in NYC today. Apple is selling these
> > things at a very good clip. A news program I heard tonight had some
> > analyst saying they could sell a million in the first week.
>
> The apple stores are selling ok (but hardly in great numbers, at least
> here in jersey), but not the AT&T stores, and guess what? there's hell
> lot more AT&T stores than apple stores...

There have been widespread reports of AT&T stores selling out. I waited
at one yesterday for a couple of hours (didn't think it would be that
long, but they seemed pretty inept at managing the volume) and went home
empty-handed. 8 GB models sold out in the first 1/2 of the line, and 4
GB models shortly thereafter.

Apple is clearly favoring its own retail stores for unit shipments.
Rumors sites say AT&T stores got 70 or 90 each, while Apple stores got
hundreds or thousands.

> The projection was actually 200,000 in the first 2 days or so...now
> i'm not so sure they can make that given the short lines in areas
> other than NY or some west coast cities. Probably if they count online
> sales as part of that, but then again you can't count that unless
> they're shipped.

Meh. I'm sure they were always planning to count online sales.

> Btw, analysts are saying all kinds of things...the projection for the
> first 2 days or so is a low of 50K units to a high of 200k units.

--

ZnU

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 9:03:55 PM6/30/07

to

In article <f66trf$v40$1...@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> At 30 Jun 2007 09:45:58 -0700 Kurt wrote:
>
> > iPhone data plan alone saves you $720 for 2 years over the standard PDA
> > data plan.
>
>
> Except it isn't a PDA!

But an iPhone user will probably use *more* bandwidth than most PDA
users will, which is all AT&T cares about.

I bet Apple had to fight for that $20 price. Particularly when the name
"YouTube" was mentioned.

> > You've paid for your phone with this savings.
>
> And maybe have enough left over to buy a PDA!>

--

Tim Murray

unread,

Jun 30, 2007, 9:12:34 PM6/30/07

to

On Jun 30, 2007, asjb...@gmail.com wrote:
> The advantage overall is that to developers Java is a superior
> development platform in general than creating native apps in terms of
> ease of development, range of target markets, and safety.
>

So how about taking the side of the end user? Where native apps are faster,
have smoother, more uniform UI, can share data, and (if the developer cares
to do it right) result in a richer experience?