NEWS: Apple's Droid X Death Grip Footage: Misleading and Frustating
John Navas
reception problem of the iPhone 4 and has sadly resorted to petty
tactics first angering smartphone makers like Nokia, HTC, Samsung and
RIM and lastly fueling the Droid X vs iPhone 4 war.
Earlier the Cupertino-based firm held a press conference to address the
issue and claimed that network loss was a common thing in smartphones
including Motorola's Droid X. Apple did not stop here and tried to
vindicate its point by launching a video competitive analysis of the
smartphones. The video claimed that the network loss is not only limited
to the iPhone 4 and it is also found in Droid X.
Apple’s claim however, has been rejected by many experts. In its claim
Apple has used "bars" as a measure of signal but the company should know
that bars are defined differently on every phone. The signal receive
strength is measured in -dBm or the phone's ability to connect calls and
iPhone 4 has failed majorly on this front.
Experts maintained that Apple's video is misleading, as it fails to show
that Droid X's antenna is at the bottom of the back of the phone. The
way Apple has shown the users holding the phone in the video is not the
way most users hold while making calls. Apple also hides the actual
signal number away from users, while the Android OS gives a free reading
of the accurate signal.
George Kerby
On 7/26/10 9:15 PM, in article i8gs461f388s0j5e7...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> It seems that Apple has decided to continue its defense over the
> reception problem of the iPhone 4 and has sadly resorted to petty
> tactics first angering smartphone makers like Nokia, HTC, Samsung and
> RIM and lastly fueling the Droid X vs iPhone 4 war.
>
> Earlier the Cupertino-based firm held a press conference to address the
> issue and claimed that network loss was a common thing in smartphones
> including Motorola's Droid X. Apple did not stop here and tried to
> vindicate its point by launching a video competitive analysis of the
> smartphones. The video claimed that the network loss is not only limited
> to the iPhone 4 and it is also found in Droid X.
>
> Appleąs claim however, has been rejected by many experts. In its claim
> Apple has used "bars" as a measure of signal but the company should know
> that bars are defined differently on every phone. The signal receive
> strength is measured in -dBm or the phone's ability to connect calls and
> iPhone 4 has failed majorly on this front.
>
> Experts maintained that Apple's video is misleading, as it fails to show
> that Droid X's antenna is at the bottom of the back of the phone. The
> way Apple has shown the users holding the phone in the video is not the
> way most users hold while making calls. Apple also hides the actual
> signal number away from users, while the Android OS gives a free reading
> of the accurate signal.
>
> MORE:
> <http://www.lanewsmonitor.com/news/Apples-Droid-X-Death-Grip-Footage--Misleadi
> ng-and-Frustating-1280191064/>
Of course NavASS conveniently left out: "I find Appleąs reaction over the
whole issue little childish as the "death grip" controversy is dying down
and iPhone 4 is still selling like hot cakes."
John Navas
we believe a customer shouldn't have to dress up their phone for it work
properly. That's why the Droid X comes with a dual antenna design. The
kind that allows you to hold the phone anyway you like to make crystal
clear calls without a bulky phone jacket."
MORE:
<http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=132820>
--
John
If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
Larry
news:rjs056p9noi591h5m...@4ax.com:
> http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=
> 132820
2339 EDT in Eastern USA:
"The connection has timed out
The server at www.mediapost.com is taking too long to respond.
* The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in
a few
moments.
* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy,
make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
Wonder what the traffic looks like between mediapost and Apple.com servers
tonight?
--
iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships.
Larry
John Navas
<Xns9DC3F1202CC...@74.209.131.13>, Larry <no...@home.com>
wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:rjs056p9noi591h5m...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=
>> 132820
>
>2339 EDT in Eastern USA:
>"The connection has timed out
>...
>Wonder what the traffic looks like between mediapost and Apple.com servers
>tonight?
I doubt Apple is making many connections in the middle of the night.
That link worked fine for me both last night and this morning.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
John Navas
<http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/HTC-with-Android-Smashes-Q2-Estimates-332925/>
HTC, with its popular Android-running smartphones, blows past estimates
with second-quarter net profits of $269 million and shipments of 5.4
million handsets.
Motorola Android Strategy Pays Off as Smartphone Sales Rise
<http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Motorola-Android-Strategy-Pays-Off-as-Smartphone-Sales-Rise-203268/>
In a July 29 announcement on its second-quarter earnings, Motorola
showed a sixfold increase in profits—up to $162 million—though sales in
its mobile device segment slipped 6 percent from a year ago, to $1.7
billion.
John Navas
megabytes per month, compared with 338 megabytes per month for the
popular iPhone. That means Android and Windows Mobile smartphone users
are consuming a lot of data.
COMMENT: My own data usage is over 1GB per month.
John Navas
wallpaper apps that swipe personal data from the phone and transmit it
to a Chinese-owned server, a mobile security firm said today.
According to San Francisco-based Lookout, a large number of free
wallpaper apps in the Android Market scrape the phone number; the
user-specific subscriber identifier, also know as the IMSI
(International Mobile Subscriber Identity); the phone's SIM card's
serial number; and the currently-entered voicemail number from the
phone.
That information is then transmitted to a server that Internet records
show is registered to a resident of Shenzhen, a city in China's
Guangdong province, just north of Hong Kong.
Over 80 wallpaper apps created by a pair of developers -- "callmejack"
and "IceskYsl@1sters!" -- include code that accesses users' personal
data, said Kevin Mahaffey, chief technology officer and a co-founder of
Lookout.
M-M
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
Who cares? Android can't do voice dialing over Bluetooth so what good is
it?
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
Justin
Yes it can.
M-M
Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Who cares? Android can't do voice dialing over Bluetooth so what good is
> > it?
>
> Yes it can.
Plz explain. I need to BT voice dial without taking the phone from my
pocket. I did read something about voice-dialing in Froyo but no details.
--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com
Victek
>pocket. I did read something about voice-dialing in Froyo but no details.
>
>
--
>m-m
>
PCmag.com's review of the Droid X states it supports voice dialing over BT.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Mine is as well. I have used 475MB in less than two weeks and I use wireless
802.11n for most of the time, so what does that tell you. If I were out and
about more than I have been the last two weeks, that number would greatly
increase.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> megabytes per month, compared with 338 megabytes per month for the
> popular iPhone. That means Android and Windows Mobile smartphone users
> are consuming a lot of data.
You ignore Palm and RIM.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
I beg to differ. I don't use it, but the feature is on the Droid X.
John Navas
share out of Apple, RIM, and Windows Mobile's hides.
According to a report released Monday by the analysts at The Nielsen
Company, although RIM and Apple still hold their number one and two
positions as the top two suppliers of smartphones in the US, Android
phones are catching up — fast.
According to Nielsen's figures, among new subscribers in the past six
months, those picking up Android phones inched past iPhone buyers in the
second quarter of this year, garnering a 27 per cent market share to the
iPhone's 23 per cent.
In addition, a separate report by the market watchers at Canalys pegs
Android-phone growth at a whopping 886 per cent from the second quarter
of 2009 to the same quarter this year.
Both info-nuggets, however, carry hefty caveats. The iPhone 4 shipped on
June 24, right before the quarter ended. Its 1.7 million first-weekend
sales are presumably included among the Nielsen numbers, but sales of
the Jobsian handheld — antennagate or no antennagate — have been strong
during the ensuing weeks. A true iPhone v. Android analysis must wait
until the iPhone 4 has a full quarter in the sun.
MORE:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/neilsen_smartphone_stats/>
John Navas
John Navas
surfaced claiming the 10-inch device may be on store shelves by the
fall. Motorola's tablet would be a direct competitor to Apple's iPad.
But unlike Apple's tablet, you would be able to watch television on the
Motorola device thanks to integration with Verizon's FIOS digital TV
service, according to the Financial Times.
The Times doesn't provide any detailed specs for the tablet, but does
say it would support Flash video--another feature the iPad lacks. The
10-inch device would also have a rear-facing camera for taking snapshots
and a front-facing camera for video conferencing. You would also be able
to turn the tablet into a Wi-Fi hotspot, according to the Times,
suggesting the device would likely have 3G connectivity provided by
Verizon.
MORE:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/202533/motorola_and_verizon_to_launch_tv_tablet_report_says.html>
George Kerby
On 8/4/10 11:14 AM, in article uc4j56hela5u1v27n...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
They're *ALL* trying to play "catch up" to the **LEADER**, and it just burns
your sorry ass, NavASS. So pathetic...
John Navas
smartphone OS by 2012, after the Symbian OS, but now accelerating sales
will help it get there this year, according to analysts.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
When Froyo (2.2) comes out with the JIT embedded in the operating system,
these huge platform phones are going to leap out of their shells with
additional capabilities. Android is on its ascendency and shows no signs of
peaking. The iPhone on the other hand may very well have peaked.
John Navas
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <vel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> Google's Android was expected to become the world's second most-used
>> smartphone OS by 2012, after the Symbian OS, but now accelerating sales
>> will help it get there this year, according to analysts.
>>
>> MORE:
>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180197/Android_growing_much_faster_than_expected_say_analysts>
>
>When Froyo (2.2) comes out with the JIT embedded in the operating system,
>these huge platform phones are going to leap out of their shells with
>additional capabilities. Android is on its ascendency and shows no signs of
>peaking. The iPhone on the other hand may very well have peaked.
JIT (Just In Time compilation) has advantages for certain types of
applications, but not for all types, and there is no free lunch -- the
tradeoff is increased startup delay, which can result in degraded
responsiveness, a big reason why Froyo (2.2) is questionable (IMnsHO)
on earlier, slower hardware.
John Navas
BlackBerry OS share drops 9 points to 28 percent.
The NPD Group, August 4, 2010 - Riding the wave of new handset
introductions and wide carrier distribution in the second quarter (Q2),
the Android smartphone operating system (OS) continued its upward climb
in the U.S. consumer mobile phone market, according to The NPD Group, a
leading market research company. For the first time since the fourth
quarter (Q4) of 2007, RIM fell to second position, as Android took the
lead among operating systems in handsets sold to U.S. consumers. NPD’s
latest wireless market research reveals that Android accounted for 33
percent of all smartphones purchased in Q2, ahead of RIM (28 percent)
and Apple (22 percent).
“For the second consecutive quarter, Android handsets have shown strong
but slowing sell-through market share gains among U.S. consumers,” said
Ross Rubin, executive director of industry analysis for NPD. “While the
Google-developed OS took market share from RIM, Apple’s iOS saw a small
gain this quarter on the strength of the iPhone 4 launch.”
Based on U.S. consumer purchases of mobile phones in Q2, the top 5
Android smartphones were as follows:
1. Motorola Droid
2. HTC Droid Incredible
3. HTC EVO 4G
4. HTC Hero
5. HTC Droid Eris
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> On 6 Aug 2010 15:50:22 GMT, in <8c2p9u...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <vel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> Google's Android was expected to become the world's second most-used
>>> smartphone OS by 2012, after the Symbian OS, but now accelerating sales
>>> will help it get there this year, according to analysts.
>>>
>>> MORE:
>>> <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180197/Android_growing_much_faster_than_expected_say_analysts>
>>
>>When Froyo (2.2) comes out with the JIT embedded in the operating system,
>>these huge platform phones are going to leap out of their shells with
>>additional capabilities. Android is on its ascendency and shows no signs of
>>peaking. The iPhone on the other hand may very well have peaked.
>
> JIT (Just In Time compilation) has advantages for certain types of
> applications, but not for all types, and there is no free lunch -- the
> tradeoff is increased startup delay, which can result in degraded
> responsiveness, a big reason why Froyo (2.2) is questionable (IMnsHO)
> on earlier, slower hardware.
That goes without saying. It is also clear that any app that has code used
more than one time will benefit and that will just about all apps and
certainly the operating system itself. Look at the performance benchmarks for
the Nexus One compared to other Android based phones (still on 2.1) and it is
at least 4x higher (I have the link on my Facebook page somewhere ... I can
provide it if desired). In any event, in all but a few rare cases, JIT will
be a HUGE improvement (4x - 5x general performance improvement excluding GPU
based graphics). Look at the JRE and .NET and JIT is built in and that's that
... it simply is a no brainer; just use it. The worst affect I can see is
extended load times for certain types of apps [but with the 1GHz processors
out these days, that will be barely noticable which is indeed the case as
experienced by a friend of mine who has the Nexus One and another who has the
EVO which was just updated to 2.2 yesterday].
John Navas
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <vel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In alt.cellular.verizon John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> JIT (Just In Time compilation) has advantages for certain types of
>> applications, but not for all types, and there is no free lunch -- the
>> tradeoff is increased startup delay, which can result in degraded
>> responsiveness, a big reason why Froyo (2.2) is questionable (IMnsHO)
>> on earlier, slower hardware.
>
>That goes without saying. It is also clear that any app that has code used
>more than one time will benefit
It takes much more than a single repetition for JIT to pay off, part of
the reason more sophisticated engines only compile code loops that have
reached a certain repetition count.
>and that will just about all apps and
There are large sections of code that do not benefit from JIT, such as
linear code, and code that largely just glues together OS function
calls. I've profiled many apps that show less than 10% gain.
>certainly the operating system itself.
The OS is pre-optimized.
>Look at the performance benchmarks for
>the Nexus One compared to other Android based phones (still on 2.1) and it is
>at least 4x higher (I have the link on my Facebook page somewhere ... I can
>provide it if desired).
Please do -- there's no way to assess your statement without the source.
In general, such benchmarks tend to be selected to show the maximum
benefit, and aren't a substitute for proper code profiling.
>In any event, in all but a few rare cases, JIT will
>be a HUGE improvement (4x - 5x general performance improvement excluding GPU
>based graphics).
Net real-world gains rarely exceed 2-3x in my experience, and are
typically less. Most app code does not max out the processor.
>Look at the JRE and .NET and JIT is built in and that's that
>... it simply is a no brainer; just use it.
JRE has a sophisticated system that only applies JIT when there's a good
chance of performance gain, and even then it guesses wrong a fair
percentage of the time. .NET is worse. And both still suffer from
annoying startup delays. I'd call it anything but a no brainer.
Where JIT really pays off is in server applications that will be
executed repeatedly in a very performance sensitive environment.
>The worst affect I can see is
>extended load times for certain types of apps [but with the 1GHz processors
>out these days, that will be barely noticable which is indeed the case as
>experienced by a friend of mine who has the Nexus One and another who has the
>EVO which was just updated to 2.2 yesterday].
Even the 1 GHz machines have some annoying lag issues.
John Navas
attention in the mobile world lately, due largely to a few
well-publicized events affecting each of the major platforms.
On the iPhone side, of course, there's the JailbreakMe tool, which
unlocks the device's operating system in a way that could potentially be
emulated by malicious applications.
On the Android side, it's been the case of the data-accessing wallpaper
apps--which, it turns out, did not do anything to put users at risk
after all.
Transmission security, meanwhile, has given the Blackberry platform its
own share of the limelight in data-monitoring nations.
Yet, while it's clear no mobile platform has perfect security--nor is
that even possible--Android has a number of compelling advantages that
make its apps inherently safer than those for the iPhone.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Application security has become the focus of a flurry of intense
> attention in the mobile world lately, due largely to a few
> well-publicized events affecting each of the major platforms.
>
> On the iPhone side, of course, there's the JailbreakMe tool, which
> unlocks the device's operating system in a way that could potentially be
> emulated by malicious applications.
although it could, so far it has only been used to jailbreak. the fix
is already done and will be released in the next update.
> On the Android side, it's been the case of the data-accessing wallpaper
> apps--which, it turns out, did not do anything to put users at risk
> after all.
other than compromise their personal data, you mean?
and there's the fake banking app from a while back that pretended to be
genuine but stole id/pw.
> Transmission security, meanwhile, has given the Blackberry platform its
> own share of the limelight in data-monitoring nations.
that one, however, shows that blackberry is *too* secure for those
nations.
> Yet, while it's clear no mobile platform has perfect security--nor is
> that even possible--Android has a number of compelling advantages that
> make its apps inherently safer than those for the iPhone.
>
> MORE:
> <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202758/why_android_app_security_is_better_than_for_the_iphone.html>
why am i not surprised. yet another fluff piece with incorrect
information.
Nessnet
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C87F14D3.3A887%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
Not for long..... (leader)
What is pathetic is the fanbois holding on to the delusion that their precious will
still be in the front of the pack in the near future. It's just a matter of months now...
George Kerby
On 8/7/10 12:04 PM, in article
YJadnQVLXqCID8DR...@giganews.com, "Nessnet"
<richa...@spam.nessnet.dot.com> wrote:
Alas, for freaks such as you and NavASS, 'tomorrow' never comes.
Carry on, fool...
John Navas
engineering, is leaving the company, signaling a change in leadership
after criticism erupted over the iPhone 4's unique antenna.
MORE:
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704182304575415913636044320.html>
MY COMMENT:
The Six Phases of Any Project:
1. Optimism and enthusiasm.
2. Disillusionment.
3. Panic.
4. Search for the guilty.
5. Punishment of the innocent.
6. Reward and honor for the undeserving.
John Navas
Apple into a corner of the smartphone world. While Google and Android
are the current hot topics, Apple competitors are pressured by Nokia's
massive mid-range effort.
Especially Samsung and LG seem to be loosing customers to Nokia, and
rather than solely fighting back against Nokia, both companies have
smartphones in the pipeline that'll target the iPhone market very
specifically.
Sony Ericsson keeps their cards tight, but is already executing a
similar strategy, that'll ultimately also lead to direct iPhone
competitors, if you ask us. In addition there's Nokia's own massive
effort with Qt atop Symbian and MeeGo.
Apple has turned to its lawyers to prevent being pushed into the said
corner, but it doesn't look like that's going to be a successful path.
Additionally, Microsoft looms in the background, a company Apple can't
touch.
The "innovate or die" stamp may simply be on Apple's forehead next. We
guess that's also why hardware aspects are rapidly becoming important
for Apple, with Microsoft closely following suit. Hardware could become
the key differentiator between these two companies as far as mobile
computing in the future is concerned.
A market Nokia and Intel will aim to rule through MeeGo.
<http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/cell-phones/nokia-n900/11202.html>
John Navas
leaves some iPhones, iPads and iPods vulnerable to hackers. Said to be
so dangerous that German Federal Office for Information Security have
officially warned users of two critically weak points for which there is
no patch available.
MORE:
<http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/08/08/apple-warning-by-german-government-over-security-concerns/>
"Apple's self-inflicted bruises take the shine off its untouchable brand
untouchable brand"
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/08/apple-iphone-ipad-mobiles>
Despite the opening of their flagship store in London's Covent Garden
yesterday, Apple has been having a tricky time. The company is
celebrated for its sleek design and hassle-free software, but there is
growing resistance to the "closed shop" nature of its products, the "Mac
monopoly" that means users must buy their music through iTunes and that
all "apps" must come pre-approved from the Apple store. Such tight – and
profitable – security is grudgingly accepted by Mac, iPhone and iPad
users because the machines themselves are so good.
Now, however, Apple's untouchable brand has been tarnished. First came
the grumbles from technophiles, underwhelmed by the iPad, although this
didn't stop the gadget selling at record levels. Then came the iPhone
4's handling issue. The "loses signal if you hold it" hiccup compromised
what is, ultimately, a mobile phone.
Apple then managed to compound the fault: first offering little more
than a bandage for the affected area and then revealing another mistake
entirely. The admission that its method for measuring what phone signal
was available had been wrong all along. In all its phones.
And to cap it all, this week the German government pointed out a
security failure that renders some iPhones, iPads and iPods vulnerable
to hackers, a threat considered so dangerous that the German Federal
Office for Information Security officially warned citizens of "two
critical weak points for which no patch exists". A statement that leaves
Apple's all-important reputation for perfection looking bruised.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> A market Nokia and Intel will aim to rule through MeeGo.
good luck on that one. it's shaping up to be android and iphone, with
the rest as minor players. meego is going to be lost in the noise.
George Kerby
On 8/8/10 10:36 AM, in article 2fjt56dm0ttpb1cor...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> MY COMMENT:
> The Six Phases of Any Project:
> 1. Optimism and enthusiasm.
> 2. Disillusionment.
> 3. Panic.
> 4. Search for the guilty.
> 5. Punishment of the innocent.
> 6. Reward and honor for the undeserving.
Sounds like the Obama presidency. Have you figured out 'who's ass to kick'
yet, NavASS?!?
Larry
news:uqjt56h19ev8dsr23...@4ax.com:
> A market Nokia and Intel will aim to rule through MeeGo.
>
Meego good! Meego FUN! Triple boots on my netbook. Hope Meego gets
ported to N800 because it came from Maemo Linux. Meego's got Google Chrome
on it, now much more complete port, too....more fun!
Meego FREE! Best price!
I'm planning on dumping WinXP and Ubuntu for Mobile when Meego is ready.
Boots off 8GB USB flashdrive in 8 seconds!
--
http://www.energyradio.jo/ English hiphop station in Ammon, Jordan?!
Larry
Nessnet
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C8830BA9.3AAEC%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
George, I will be very glad to resurrect this 'discussion' when the time comes.
It's going to be a bad day in fanboi fantasy land when reality hits you.
Just look at the number of new projects (apps) that are being developed for iPhone and Android.
Since the beginning of the year, Android has more than double its share while iPhone has steadily declined
each month.
As time goes on, more developers are choosing to bring their apps to Android and there is no sign of
this stopping. With every major US carrier ready to jump on the Android bandwagon, it is certain
that this trend will continue to accelerate.
With all the recent news, is it really that surprising some devs are ready to bail on the iPhone?
No one understands the App Store approval process. The FCC is investigating Apple's rejection of Google
Voice. Loyal customers are unhappy and the numbers are growing - (OMG!!! fanboi defectors!!)
Antennagate is certainly a factor here also. (And how bad Apple looked when their spin failed miserably)
If you want to know where iPhone is headed, just talk to their developers and they will tell you. This negative
trend is NOT my opinion - it is fact, plain and simple
We will see just who the "fool" is quite soon Georgie.....
nospam
<richa...@spam.nessnet.dot.com> wrote:
> Just look at the number of new projects (apps) that are being developed for
> iPhone and Android.
> Since the beginning of the year, Android has more than double its share while
> iPhone has steadily declined
> each month.
wrong.
> As time goes on, more developers are choosing to bring their apps to Android
> and there is no sign of
> this stopping. With every major US carrier ready to jump on the Android
> bandwagon, it is certain
> that this trend will continue to accelerate.
>
> With all the recent news, is it really that surprising some devs are ready to
> bail on the iPhone?
almost none. meanwhile, more and more are releasing their first iphone
app.
> No one understands the App Store approval process. The FCC is investigating
> Apple's rejection of Google Voice.
last year's news.
> Loyal customers are unhappy and the numbers are growing - (OMG!!!
> fanboi defectors!!)
> Antennagate is certainly a factor here also. (And how bad Apple looked when
> their spin failed miserably)
it failed so miserable that the phone is still selling like crazy.
> If you want to know where iPhone is headed, just talk to their developers and
> they will tell you. This negative
> trend is NOT my opinion - it is fact, plain and simple
complete rubbish.
George Kerby
On 8/8/10 11:30 PM, in article
GZCdnTww79nSGcLR...@giganews.com, "Nessnet"
<richa...@spam.nessnet.dot.com> wrote:
In YOUR world. ONLY in your world...
>
> We will see just who the "fool" is quite soon Georgie.....
>
That we will, Droidboi, that we will.
>
John Navas
<Xns9DCEED9DB29...@74.209.131.13>, Larry <no...@home.com>
wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:uqjt56h19ev8dsr23...@4ax.com:
>
>> A market Nokia and Intel will aim to rule through MeeGo.
>
>Meego good! Meego FUN! Triple boots on my netbook. Hope Meego gets
>ported to N800 because it came from Maemo Linux. Meego's got Google Chrome
>on it, now much more complete port, too....more fun!
>
>Meego FREE! Best price!
It may always be stated in dollars, but there is always a price.
TANSTAAFL.
>I'm planning on dumping WinXP and Ubuntu for Mobile when Meego is ready.
>Boots off 8GB USB flashdrive in 8 seconds!
Ubuntu boots off a 1 GB USB flash drive in the same amount of time.
George Kerby
On 8/9/10 9:19 AM, in article C88578B6.3AC90%ghost_...@hotmail.com,
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
APPLE ON IT'S WAY TO HIT $375.00: ANALYST
Needham hiked its Apple 12-month price target from $280 to $375, mainly
because Apple is bringing in much better-than-expected iPad and Mac sales.
"In addition, the upgrade cycle of iPhone owners appears to be occurring
much faster than we previously assumed," explained Charlie Wolf, an analyst
at Needham.
Apple's recent bad publicity has done little to dampen consumers' iPhone
ardor. Wolf says that iPhone users are upgrading to new models in one or two
years, faster than Needham's previous prediction of every three years.
"The faster upgrade cycle in part reflects AT&T's(T) liberal upgrade
activation policy, in which the company is waving its early termination fee
for most iPhone subscribers," explained Wolf, adding that a Verizon(VZ)
iPhone launch could double Apple's share of the U.S. smartphone market.
Needham has estimated that Apple will ship over 40 million iPhones in 2010,
up from 25 million last year.
John Navas
<2fjt56dm0ttpb1cor...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
PAPERMASTER'S APPLE EXIT A RESULT OF FALLING OUT WITH STEVE JOBS
Mark Papermaster's departure from Apple is said to be a result of
"cultural incompatibility" and losing the trust of Chief Executive Steve
Jobs, and not solely a result of the iPhone 4 "antennagate."
According to sources who spoke with The Wall Street Journal,
Papermaster's departure came as a result of a "falling out" with Jobs.
How much the iPhone 4 antenna controversy played a part in his exit was
said to be "unclear," as those anonymous sources said the departure was
chiefly a result of "cultural incompatibility."
"Mr. Papermaster had lost the confidence of Mr. Jobs months ago and
hasn't been part of the decision-making process for some time, these
people said," authors Yukari Iwatani Kane and Ian Sherr wrote. "They
added that Mr. Papermaster didn't appear to have the type of creative
thinking expected at Apple and wasn't used to Apple's corporate culture,
where even senior executives are expected to keep on top of the smallest
details of their areas of responsibility and often have to handle many
tasks directly, as opposed to delegating them."
John Navas
new application for jailbroken iPhones and iPads. Coming from Comex, the
same man who developed the browser-based JailbreakMe tool, Frash lets
iPhone users view Adobe Flash content on their phones.
Frash is in its very early stages, and works with the iPhone 4, 3GS
(with iOS4), third-generation iPod Touch, and iPads with the latest
software (3.2.X), the developer says. To install Frash, you will also
need to jailbreak your device, which can be done easily with the new Web
browser-based JailbreakMe tool released last week.
Once you have jailbroken your iOS device and installed Frash (GadgetsDNA
has a simple 7-step guide), you can view Adobe Flash in Mobile Safari.
Not all Flash content will work though. Frash is in the early
development stages (version 0.02), so only basic Flash animations will
display, mainly advertisements. ...
MORE:
<http://www.pcworld.com/article/202887/flash_for_iphone_now_available_thanks_to_jailbreak.html>
John Navas
Google's Android operating system has been detected in the wild.
Trojan-SMS.AndroidOS.FakePlayer-A poses as a harmless media player
application and has already infected a number of mobile devices, Russian
security firm Kaspersky Lab warns. Prospective marks are prompted to
install a "media player file" of just over 13 KB with the standard
Android .APK extension.
Once installed, the Trojan begins sending SMS messages to premium-rate
numbers without the owner’s knowledge or consent. Victims wind up with a
huge bill while the cybercrooks behind the scheme earn a slice of the
income. There have been isolated cases of devices running Android
getting infected with spyware since last year, but this is the first
occasion that an SMS-spewing Trojan, common in the world of mobile
malware, has affected devices running Google's operating system.
Denis Maslennikov, mobile research group manager at Kaspersky Lab, said
the success of the Android platform in the marketplace has triggered
increased interest from virus writers. The Russian security firm plans
to respond to the increased threat with a new mobile security product,
Kaspersky Mobile Security for Android, in early 2011.
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/10/android_sms_trojan/>
Nessnet
It will make seeing you eating your hat all the more pleasurable...
(And your continued outright dismissals of the FACTS all the more pathetic)
Look at Android's momentum. Just last week, NPD said that Android phones accounted for a third
of all smart phones purchased in the U.S. , with RIM's BlackBerry at 28 percent and.....
the iPhone AT 22%!
The market research firm iSuppli just put out the most damning numbers: In terms of global smart
phone market share, iPhones will peak at 15.9 percent in 2012, then fall to 15.3 percent two years later.
Android will snatch 19.4 percent in two years, and keep on growing, hitting 22.8 percent in 2014. The
firm's stated reason for the limited Apple growth? "While Apple's family of iPhone products continues
to be the standard by which all other smart phones are measured, the proprietary nature of the iOS and
Apple's closed system business model will limit the number of smart phones with the operating system."
Meanwhile, "the flexibility Android offers for hardware designs and its appealing business model" is
already luring in loads of eager hardware makers. And will continue to do so.
Sound familiar? Or maybe exactly like Windows vs. Mac? You know, the one that had one CLEAR winner
and one CLEAR loser, at least in terms of market share? Steve Jobs didn't see this coming, didn't see how
too much control over the hardware supply might once again prevent him from grabbing market share.
A little control can be a good thing, but a chokehold, well, that's strangulation, plain and simple.
And, it will be why Apple looses - again.
SMS
<snip>
> Sound familiar? Or maybe exactly like Windows vs. Mac? You know, the one
> that had one CLEAR winner and one CLEAR loser, at least in terms of
> market share? Steve Jobs didn't see this coming, didn't see how too much
> control over the hardware supply might once again prevent him from
> grabbing market share.
Apple and Jobs knew full well what the result of controlling the
hardware would be. Market share was never the primary goal, margins,
profit, and ROI were the goals, and Apple achieved those goals
spectacularly. The fanbois hurt Apple's image by trying to make this a
market share battle, when in fact it's a really battle to avoid the fate
of Motorola and Nokia and RIM who are faltering despite their high volumes.
> A little control can be a good thing, but a chokehold, well, that's
> strangulation, plain and simple.
>
> And, it will be why Apple looses - again.
Unlikely that Apple will make the same mistake again. Right now they're
hobbled by the exclusivity agreements with carriers, but that's a
temporary thing. Once these agreements expire and Apple has handsets
available for all carriers worldwide they'll carve out a profitable
niche. Though it's likely that Android will eventually pass Apple in
terms of market share, Apple will be making the best margins--as they do
in the PC space.
If Android and Apple combined will have only about 38% of the smartphone
market (as that article claims), who will have the other 62%? I'd
predict more along the lines of Android 35%, Apple 20%, RIM 15%, and
everything else 30%, but with Apple still having the highest margins.
The iPhone has the advantage of being a single, tremendously popular
platform. Even though Apple has locked it, and it's subsidy locked to a
carrier, this is a minor issue because those upset by the restrictions
can easily overcome them. It's not going to be so easy on an Android
phone, as we've already seen.
John Navas
<4c620411$0$22096$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 10/08/10 6:00 PM, Nessnet wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Sound familiar? Or maybe exactly like Windows vs. Mac? You know, the one
>> that had one CLEAR winner and one CLEAR loser, at least in terms of
>> market share? Steve Jobs didn't see this coming, didn't see how too much
>> control over the hardware supply might once again prevent him from
>> grabbing market share.
>
>Apple and Jobs knew full well what the result of controlling the
>hardware would be. Market share was never the primary goal, margins,
>profit, and ROI were the goals, ...
That was actually the fallback plan.
The original objective was market share.
>If Android and Apple combined will have only about 38% of the smartphone
>market (as that article claims), who will have the other 62%? I'd
>predict more along the lines of Android 35%, Apple 20%, RIM 15%, and
>everything else 30%, but with Apple still having the highest margins.
I'm sure this will prove to be every bit as good as your past
predictions. ;)
My own guess(tm) is that Nokia, with help from Intel, will retain a very
strong position on a worldwide basis. Tip: What happens in the USA is
only a minor part of the total market.
>The iPhone has the advantage of being a single, tremendously popular
>platform.
That's actually a disadvantage as the market matures. Apple badly needs
an iPhone Mini, and when it finally gets around to it, it will probably
be at a severe disadvantage.
>Even though Apple has locked it, and it's subsidy locked to a
>carrier, this is a minor issue because those upset by the restrictions
>can easily overcome them. It's not going to be so easy on an Android
>phone, as we've already seen.
Nonsense (on both counts).
--
John
"There are three kinds of men.
The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
-Will Rogers
Nessnet
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:4c620411$0$22096$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Thank you for the articulate counter argument.
At least YOU take the time to post something intelligent.
Unlike others....
I do still think that the choke hold Apple insists upon will be detrimental in the long run.
Time will tell.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Apple and Jobs knew full well what the result of controlling the
> >hardware would be. Market share was never the primary goal, margins,
> >profit, and ROI were the goals, ...
>
> That was actually the fallback plan.
> The original objective was market share.
not according to apple it wasn't.
> >If Android and Apple combined will have only about 38% of the smartphone
> >market (as that article claims), who will have the other 62%? I'd
> >predict more along the lines of Android 35%, Apple 20%, RIM 15%, and
> >everything else 30%, but with Apple still having the highest margins.
>
> I'm sure this will prove to be every bit as good as your past
> predictions. ;)
>
> My own guess(tm) is that Nokia, with help from Intel, will retain a very
> strong position on a worldwide basis. Tip: What happens in the USA is
> only a minor part of the total market.
not unless they change their strategy.
android and ios are shaping up to be the two main players, with
blackberry, windows phone 7 picking up most of the rest. hp/palm is
still an unknown. hp might make it into something, but it may be too
late.
> >The iPhone has the advantage of being a single, tremendously popular
> >platform.
>
> That's actually a disadvantage as the market matures. Apple badly needs
> an iPhone Mini, and when it finally gets around to it, it will probably
> be at a severe disadvantage.
actually they don't, and an iphone mini makes absolutely no sense from
a functional point of view.
> >Even though Apple has locked it, and it's subsidy locked to a
> >carrier, this is a minor issue because those upset by the restrictions
> >can easily overcome them. It's not going to be so easy on an Android
> >phone, as we've already seen.
>
> Nonsense (on both counts).
most people don't care about unlocking, however, it's just as easy to
do it on android for those who do.
SMS
<snip>
> I do still think that the choke hold Apple insists upon will be
> detrimental in the long run.
Detrimental in terms of market share, absolutely. Detrimental in terms
of margins, ROI, and profit, unlikely. No doubt they've run the numbers
in terms of licensing the iPhone OS just as they've done so with OS-X
and determined that it's not in their best interest.
Justin
> In article <o114669cvqjq2khio...@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Apple and Jobs knew full well what the result of controlling the
>> >hardware would be. Market share was never the primary goal, margins,
>> >profit, and ROI were the goals, ...
>>
>> That was actually the fallback plan.
>> The original objective was market share.
>
> not according to apple it wasn't.
Same as apple will not be making a phone, nobody reads books, who wants watch
video on a tiny little screen?
o
“There are no plans to make a tablet,” Jobs was quoted saying to Mossberg. “It turns out people want keyboards…. We look at the tablet, and we think it is going to fail.”
mi...@sushi.com
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:36:54 -0700, in
>
>
>
> <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Mark Papermaster, Apple Inc.'s senior vice president for iPhone
> >engineering, is leaving the company, signaling a change in leadership
> >after criticism erupted over the iPhone 4's unique antenna.
>
> >MORE:
I don't believe the spin on this story. The iphone4 sucked and he was
shown the door. The spin is set up such that Apple doesn't say the
product is crap, but everyone knows that is the real reason this guy
got canned.
nospam
<44c158a1-bf0d-40fc...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
<"mi...@sushi.com"> wrote:
> I don't believe the spin on this story. The iphone4 sucked and he was
> shown the door.
the problem with that (bogus) theory is that he was being shown the
door well *before* the iphone even shipped. here's a guy who is in
charge of the iphone division but is nowhere to be seen for its launch
or press conference?? where was he?
more than likely, he just wasn't a good fit. the corporate culture
between apple and ibm are very different.
> The spin is set up such that Apple doesn't say the
> product is crap, but everyone knows that is the real reason this guy
> got canned.
nobody other than him and the people with whom he works knows the real
reason.
John Navas
<44c158a1-bf0d-40fc...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"mi...@sushi.com" <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:
Of course. This is just the furious churning of the spin machine.
George Kerby
On 8/10/10 9:05 PM, in article o114669cvqjq2khio...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:00:08 -0700, in
> <4c620411$0$22096$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The iPhone has the advantage of being a single, tremendously popular
>> platform.
>
> That's actually a disadvantage as the market matures. Apple badly needs
> an iPhone Mini, and when it finally gets around to it, it will probably
> be at a severe disadvantage.
>
"iPhone Mini"?!? For small minds such as yours, NavASS?
John Navas
George Kerby
<http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/iphone-users-have-twice-as/?camp=syndi
cation&medium=portals&from=yahoo>
How 'bout them apples, boy?!?
Justin
Actually, it says Apple users have twice as many partners as android users.
What do you expect? They get screwed by Apple at every opportunity, so there's
an extra partner or two right off the bat.
News
Survey suggests the iToy is used in promiscuous mode.
NotMe
All I ever wanted was
A little bit of money for food.
A little bit of money for beer.
And every now and then ... a little bit.
SMS
No, that survey says twice as many partners, not twice as much sex.
Probably less sex on average since there's down time between partners.
What it really says is that Android users are able to retain partners
for longer periods of time by keeping the partner more satisfied.
It's probably got little to do with the handset anyway, and more with
the carrier. Since Verizon users (the biggest users of Android
handsets), have far fewer dropped calls than AT&T users (the biggest
users of iPhones) they spend less time redialing and hence have more
time to keep their partner happy and don't have to keep finding new
partners. Once Verizon gets the iPhone things will equalize.
[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
Especially the totally blind fanboiz like Apple Apologist #1......
--
http://www.energyradio.jo/ English hiphop station in Ammon, Jordan?!
Larry
John Navas
<4c62fbaa$0$22145$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
What a silly bashing, but par for your course.
>[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
And your agenda goes on, again par for your course.
[rude cross-posting changed restored]
--
John
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Larry
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> No, that survey says twice as many partners, not twice as much sex.
>
That's very reasonable. If your boy/girlfriend is an iPhone fan, she/he'd
spend hours and hours playing with the iToy instead of YOUR toy, leading to
many breakups, similar to the problem of dating/mating with an internet
addict. There's little sex because the partner would get in the way of the
display, or who wants to iphone upside down bent of a chair while your
lover is texting away on the tiny screen?
So, they have twice as many PARTNERS because of all the pumping and DUMPING
going on among toyphone addicts.
It's very reasonable, even logical!
John Navas
* 326 million handsets sold in the past 3 months
* 19% are smartphones
Market shares:
* Symbian 41%
* BlackBerry 18%
* Android 17%
* Apple 14%
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/12/smartphone_sales/>
Mike Hofman
> Data from Gartner:
>
> * 326 million handsets sold in the past 3 months
> * 19% are smartphones
>
> Market shares:
> * Symbian 41%
> * BlackBerry 18%
> * Android 17%
> * Apple 14%
you might want to look at the quarter it measured. it was pre-iPhone 4,
so that data is invalid. it would be many years before android caught up
to the blackberry or iphone.
you posted just a "short blip" in time, not overall market share. so
learn to post valid data next time. you look like a fool until you do.
John Navas
<4c642939$0$89389$815e...@news.qwest.net>, Mike Hofman
<in...@recreate68.org> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Data from Gartner:
>>
>> * 326 million handsets sold in the past 3 months
>> * 19% are smartphones
>>
>> Market shares:
>> * Symbian 41%
>> * BlackBerry 18%
>> * Android 17%
>> * Apple 14%
>
>you might want to look at the quarter it measured. it was pre-iPhone 4,
>so that data is invalid. it would be many years before android caught up
>to the blackberry or iphone.
That a non sequitur -- by that logic *all* data is "invalid".
It's as valid as any other quarter.
iPhone may well show a surge in the next quarter, but only time will
tell if it will be enough to change its ranking.
The most likely change forecast by industry observers will be Android
moving ahead of BlackBerry.
>you posted just a "short blip" in time, not overall market share. so
>learn to post valid data next time. you look like a fool until you do.
Learn to accept reality. You look like a fool until you do.
And learn some manners -- I'm just the messenger.
John Navas
that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a
wireless operator or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move
that could impact thousands of end users already owning such devices.
MORE:
<http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20100223/FCC_WIRELESS_REGULATIONS/100229986/1086>
or <http://goo.gl/slfV>
Larry
news:bbma66l2tcp3djd1n...@4ax.com:
Hmm....Wonder how much graft that cost the sellphone carriers?
Goddamned FCC lawyers need to be reminded who pays their salaries.....
John Navas
<Xns9DD37692BF8...@74.209.131.13>, Larry <no...@home.com>
wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:bbma66l2tcp3djd1n...@4ax.com:
>
>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a
>> law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are
>> deployed by a wireless operator or with the consent of a wireless
>> operator, a move that could impact thousands of end users already
>> owning such devices.
>>
>> MORE:
>> <http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20100223/FCC_WIRELESS_REGULATIONS/1
>> 00229986/1086> or <http://goo.gl/slfV>
>
>Hmm....Wonder how much graft that cost the sellphone carriers?
>
>Goddamned FCC lawyers need to be reminded who pays their salaries.....
The carriers. Think spectrum auctions.
John Navas
<7nra66t7dqgs0ag2f...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:39:10 +0000, in
><Xns9DD37692BF8...@74.209.131.13>, Larry <no...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>news:bbma66l2tcp3djd1n...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a
>>> law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are
>>> deployed by a wireless operator or with the consent of a wireless
>>> operator, a move that could impact thousands of end users already
>>> owning such devices.
>>>
>>> MORE:
>>> <http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20100223/FCC_WIRELESS_REGULATIONS/1
>>> 00229986/1086> or <http://goo.gl/slfV>
>>
>>Hmm....Wonder how much graft that cost the sellphone carriers?
>>
>>Goddamned FCC lawyers need to be reminded who pays their salaries.....
>
>The carriers. Think spectrum auctions.
It's pretty much the same kind of problem that led to the problems at
MMS and the Gulf oil spill, where an agency is supposed to juggle the
conflicting demands of regulation and generating revenue.
--
John
"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]
(PeteCresswell)
>Hmm....Wonder how much graft that cost the sellphone carriers?
>
>Goddamned FCC lawyers need to be reminded who pays their salaries.....
With apologies to Jay Leno:
"Hey Kev, the economy's bad, really bad."
"Ok Jay, how bad is the economy?"
"It's so bad that Citibank had to lay off 3 congressmen and 5
senators."
--
PeteCresswell
Nessnet
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:vra8669a945k0lt0k...@4ax.com...
The iPhone 4 will be a temporary
Nessnet
"Nessnet" <richa...@spam.nessnet.dot.com> wrote in message news:S5GdnVb5KNV8IvvR...@giganews.com...
Darn, hit enter prematurely....
The iPhone 4 release will probably cause a temporary 'blip' in the data,
but once that dies down, the overall VERY strong momentum of Android will continue.
The release of the iPhone on VZW will be another somewhat substantial 'blip' also, but the
trending is very much in Android's favor and as I've said before - it's just a matter of time...
SMS
I think that you know that "Market shares <sic>" means 'sales in the
past 3 months.'
Still it's pretty clear that if Apple does not start selling iPhones on
the other carriers that it will only take a few years before Android has
the largest installed base of smart phones. That's why all the analysts
say that the instant the exclusivity agreement with AT&T ends you'll see
the iPhone on other carriers.
John Navas
<4c66c63f$0$22104$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>... That's why all the analysts
>say that the instant the exclusivity agreement with AT&T ends you'll see
>the iPhone on other carriers.
Yet another wild claim with nothing to back it up.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >... That's why all the analysts
> >say that the instant the exclusivity agreement with AT&T ends you'll see
> >the iPhone on other carriers.
>
> Yet another wild claim with nothing to back it up.
it's common sense. or do you really think apple is going to stay with
at&t even when there is no exclusive contract requiring them to?
now it may not be the 'instant' it expires but it will be very shortly
thereafter. there are rumours of a december 31 expiry, with alternate
carriers in january, perhaps at ces.
SMS
It's a virtual certainty, according to reliable sources. The only thing
that could stop it would be AT&T paying a huge sum of money to Apple to
continue the arrangement, but it's highly unlikely that Apple would risk
its long term future in the handset business for any amount of money
AT&T could conceivably offer.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> ... That's why all the analysts
> >>> say that the instant the exclusivity agreement with AT&T ends you'll see
> >>> the iPhone on other carriers.
> >>
> >> Yet another wild claim with nothing to back it up.
> >
> > it's common sense. or do you really think apple is going to stay with
> > at&t even when there is no exclusive contract requiring them to?
> >
> > now it may not be the 'instant' it expires but it will be very shortly
> > thereafter. there are rumours of a december 31 expiry, with alternate
> > carriers in january, perhaps at ces.
>
> It's a virtual certainty, according to reliable sources. The only thing
> that could stop it would be AT&T paying a huge sum of money to Apple to
> continue the arrangement, but it's highly unlikely that Apple would risk
> its long term future in the handset business for any amount of money
> AT&T could conceivably offer.
both at&t and apple have confirmed the exclusivity will end. this is a
given.
the question is when, and nobody outside of apple and at&t know for
certain. it's entirely possible that at&t only knows when it ends, not
when apple might release something else.
John Navas
>On 15/08/10 10:00 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<jj6g669aj6ojskk47...@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> ... That's why all the analysts
>>>> say that the instant the exclusivity agreement with AT&T ends you'll see
>>>> the iPhone on other carriers.
>>>
>>> Yet another wild claim with nothing to back it up.
>>
>> it's common sense. or do you really think apple is going to stay with
>> at&t even when there is no exclusive contract requiring them to?
>>
>> now it may not be the 'instant' it expires but it will be very shortly
>> thereafter. there are rumours of a december 31 expiry, with alternate
>> carriers in january, perhaps at ces.
>
>It's a virtual certainty, according to reliable sources.
Unnamed and uncited, as usual, probably speculative as well.
You're made similar claims before that proved to be dead wrong.
Only time will tell about this one.
>[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]
[alt.cellular.cingular restored]
--
John
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
-Albert Einstein
SMS
> the question is when, and nobody outside of apple and at&t know for
> certain. it's entirely possible that at&t only knows when it ends, not
> when apple might release something else.
The original exclusivity agreement was for five years beginning in 2007,
which would make it end in 2012. This is not subject to debate. Court
documents have confirmed this. The question is whether anything happened
during the past 3 or so years that would have given Apple cause to be
able to breach or opt out of the agreement with AT&T. Were they smart
enough to write in requirements for quality of service? When they
changed from the unsubsidized model of the original iPhone to the
subsidized model of the 3G did they also renegotiate the length of the
exclusivity agreement?
AT&T itself, in SEC filings, hints that the exclusivity agreement is
about to end.
We'll have to wait and see.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >It's a virtual certainty, according to reliable sources.
>
> Unnamed and uncited, as usual, probably speculative as well.
at&t and apple have both said the exclusivity will end. it does not get
any more authoritative than that.
> You're made similar claims before that proved to be dead wrong.
so have you.
> Only time will tell about this one.
it's guaranteed.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > the question is when, and nobody outside of apple and at&t know for
> > certain. it's entirely possible that at&t only knows when it ends, not
> > when apple might release something else.
>
> The original exclusivity agreement was for five years beginning in 2007,
> which would make it end in 2012. This is not subject to debate.
yes it is subject to debate. there has *never* been a public statement
on the length of the contract, other than it was 'multi-year.' people
have speculated that it's anywhere from 2-5 years, without any basis.
> Court
> documents have confirmed this.
nope. the court documents reference a usa today article that
*speculates* on a 5 year contract, which pissed off the plaintiff and
motivated him to sue. nowhere does it reference an actual apple or at&t
statement.
> The question is whether anything happened
> during the past 3 or so years that would have given Apple cause to be
> able to breach or opt out of the agreement with AT&T. Were they smart
> enough to write in requirements for quality of service? When they
> changed from the unsubsidized model of the original iPhone to the
> subsidized model of the 3G did they also renegotiate the length of the
> exclusivity agreement?
nobody knows how long it is or whether it's been renegotiated. there
are rumours that apple wanted out but was unable to get a cdma chipset
that would fit into the same size device. it may even be over now, with
the cdma iphone delayed for entirely unrelated reasons. everyone thinks
they know what the real reason is, with nothing to back it up.
the only thing we do know is that the exclusivity *will* end.
> AT&T itself, in SEC filings, hints that the exclusivity agreement is
> about to end.
they've publicly stated it will. last year, at&t said that one day the
iphone won't be only on at&t and when that happens, they don't
anticipate a mass defection because people are stuck in family plans
and won't want to give that up.
boy are they in for a surprise. at&t is the #1 complaint about iphones.
people more than likely are going to bail, although some might wait
until their contract ends to do so.
> We'll have to wait and see.
yes.
John Navas
Proving again the adage: "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
;)
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>It's a virtual certainty, according to reliable sources.
That eliminates me, as I'm not very reliable. Also, I don't do
virtualization... I'm for real.
See summary at:
<http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/08/06/att.filing.hints.knowledge.iphone.going.away/>
The AT&T 10-Q for the 2nd quarter is at:
<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732717/000073271710000074/att2q10.htm>
As these exclusivity arrangements end, we expect to continue to
offer such handsets (based on historical industry practice), and
we believe our service plan offerings will help to retain our
customers by providing incentives not to move to a new carrier.
(...)
Although exclusivity arrangements are important to us, such
arrangements may not provide a competitive advantage over time,
as the industry continues to introduce new devices and services.
Also, while the expiration of any of our current exclusivity
arrangements could increase churn and reduce postpaid customer
additions, we do not expect any such terminations to have a
material negative impact on our Wireless segment income,
consolidated operating margin or our cash from operations.
No specific date, but a not so subtle hint that "exclusivity
arrangements" may not be around for long at AT&T.
This is rather odd:
Wireless margins improved in the second quarter of 2010 despite
record Apple iPhone activations.
I read this as suggesting that AT&T is losing money on every iPhone it
sells.
>The only thing
>that could stop it would be AT&T paying a huge sum of money to Apple to
>continue the arrangement, but it's highly unlikely that Apple would risk
>its long term future in the handset business for any amount of money
>AT&T could conceivably offer.
Bah. Use your imagination. My guess(tm) is that AT&T sues Apple over
some trivial contract detail for the sole purpose of obtaining a
temporary injunction preventing any changes to the current arrangement
until the issue is resolved in court.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
John Navas
<7ffg661nurk4ffcr7...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
I'd say it's actually more a case of standard SEC legalese, much like
the rest of the document.
>This is rather odd:
> Wireless margins improved in the second quarter of 2010 despite
> record Apple iPhone activations.
>
>I read this as suggesting that AT&T is losing money on every iPhone it
>sells.
I read this as no more than lower margins, not necessarily negative
margins.
>>The only thing
>>that could stop it would be AT&T paying a huge sum of money to Apple to
>>continue the arrangement, but it's highly unlikely that Apple would risk
>>its long term future in the handset business for any amount of money
>>AT&T could conceivably offer.
>
>Bah. Use your imagination. My guess(tm) is that AT&T sues Apple over
>some trivial contract detail for the sole purpose of obtaining a
>temporary injunction preventing any changes to the current arrangement
>until the issue is resolved in court.
Given the players, I think it will come down to money, whether AT&T is
prepared to offer enough to Apple to keep an exclusive. My own
guess(tm) is that the value proposition will not be enough to motivate
AT&T to do so, in large part because of the rapid rise of Android.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Given the players, I think it will come down to money, whether AT&T is
> prepared to offer enough to Apple to keep an exclusive. My own
> guess(tm) is that the value proposition will not be enough to motivate
> AT&T to do so, in large part because of the rapid rise of Android.
nothing but a wild ass guess, with no basis in fact.
Robert A. Fink, M. D.
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>... That's why all the analysts
>>say that the instant the exclusivity agreement with AT&T ends you'll see
>>the iPhone on other carriers.
>
>Yet another wild claim with nothing to back it up.
What I'm waiting to see is the Droid phone being made available on the
AT&T network.
Best,
Bob
John Navas
<iaig66ptkeokq78bv...@4ax.com>, "Robert A. Fink, M. D."
<lyn...@comcast.net> wrote:
Have you considered the Samsung Galaxy S?
Todd Allcock
"Robert A. Fink, M. D." <lyn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iaig66ptkeokq78bv...@4ax.com...
Not very likely, at least under the "Droid" moniker. IIRC, "Droid" is
Verizon's trademark for Verizon co-branded Android phones.
Similar-to-virtually identical phones might be sold on other networks, but
they won't be called "Droids."
Having said that, the selection of Android handsets on AT&T is decidedly
lackluster right now.
SMS
<snip>
> Bah. Use your imagination. My guess(tm) is that AT&T sues Apple over
> some trivial contract detail for the sole purpose of obtaining a
> temporary injunction preventing any changes to the current arrangement
> until the issue is resolved in court.
Nah, neither needs any bad publicity like this.
We should start a betting pool as to the date Apple first officially
announces the Verizon iPhone.
John Navas
<4c688e83$0$22100$742e...@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
Why? The date you forecast has long since come and gone.
Or didn't you think anyone would remember?
--
John
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
Jeff Liebermann
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>The AT&T 10-Q for the 2nd quarter is at:
>><http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732717/000073271710000074/att2q10.htm>
>I'd say it's actually more a case of standard SEC legalese, much like
>the rest of the document.
True. The trick to such "full disclosure" documents is to say as
little as possible about everything possible so as not to be excused
of omission. One sentence is usually sufficient about anything
detrimental.
>>This is rather odd:
>> Wireless margins improved in the second quarter of 2010 despite
>> record Apple iPhone activations.
>>
>>I read this as suggesting that AT&T is losing money on every iPhone it
>>sells.
>I read this as no more than lower margins, not necessarily negative
>margins.
Also true. Not making enough money is often deemed losing money for
investors. Still, I find the wording rather odd. I could also read
it as AT&T gouges non-iPhone customers to cover iPhone related
expenses.
>Given the players, I think it will come down to money, whether AT&T is
>prepared to offer enough to Apple to keep an exclusive.
Apple would have to be nuts to do that. Selling to Verizon and other
cell operators would generate far more unit sales. My guess(tm) is
that AT&T will arrange some kind of price break for continued sales of
the iPhone, but also start selling Android based handsets to cover all
the possibilities.
>My own
>guess(tm) is that the value proposition will not be enough to motivate
>AT&T to do so, in large part because of the rapid rise of Android.
Agreed. However, they probably will not stop selling the iPhone
because that would be perceived as abandonment by their existing
customers.
John Navas
<j9ch66ltcgjm9d9q2...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:47:03 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>The AT&T 10-Q for the 2nd quarter is at:
>>><http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/732717/000073271710000074/att2q10.htm>
>
>>I'd say it's actually more a case of standard SEC legalese, much like
>>the rest of the document.
>
>True. The trick to such "full disclosure" documents is to say as
>little as possible about everything possible so as not to be excused
>of omission. One sentence is usually sufficient about anything
>detrimental.
I'd say it's more a matter of disclaiming everything so you can't be
later accused of misleading shareholders.
>>>This is rather odd:
>>> Wireless margins improved in the second quarter of 2010 despite
>>> record Apple iPhone activations.
>>>
>>>I read this as suggesting that AT&T is losing money on every iPhone it
>>>sells.
>
>>I read this as no more than lower margins, not necessarily negative
>>margins.
>
>Also true. Not making enough money is often deemed losing money for
>investors.
That depends on other factors -- it may be desirable, for example, to
earn less margin on a sale in the short term in order to gain more in
the long term.
>Still, I find the wording rather odd. I could also read
>it as AT&T gouges non-iPhone customers to cover iPhone related
>expenses.
[shrug]
>>Given the players, I think it will come down to money, whether AT&T is
>>prepared to offer enough to Apple to keep an exclusive.
>
>Apple would have to be nuts to do that. Selling to Verizon and other
>cell operators would generate far more unit sales. My guess(tm) is
>that AT&T will arrange some kind of price break for continued sales of
>the iPhone, but also start selling Android based handsets to cover all
>the possibilities.
But it will probably also turn the iPhone into more of a commodity,
making it harder for Apple to maintain its margins both with carriers
and with consumers. It's a potentially big tradeoff with a good deal of
risk.
>>My own
>>guess(tm) is that the value proposition will not be enough to motivate
>>AT&T to do so, in large part because of the rapid rise of Android.
>
>Agreed. However, they probably will not stop selling the iPhone
>because that would be perceived as abandonment by their existing
>customers.
Of course. But then iPhone will have become more of a commodity, with
price pressure Apple doesn't feel now.
Jeff Liebermann
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>But it will probably also turn the iPhone into more of a commodity,
>making it harder for Apple to maintain its margins both with carriers
>and with consumers. It's a potentially big tradeoff with a good deal of
>risk.
Think scorched earth. If AT&T can't own the iPhone market, they might
be able to reduce it to a commodity, thus reducing the profitability
for the entire industry. Let the discounting continue until nobody is
making money. Then, AT&T can buy the wreckage from the losers.
>>Still, I find the wording rather odd. I could also read
>>it as AT&T gouges non-iPhone customers to cover iPhone related
>>expenses.
>
>[shrug]
It's difficult to determine what AT&T is thinking. Is even more
difficult to determine if they are thinking.
>>Agreed. However, they probably will not stop selling the iPhone
>>because that would be perceived as abandonment by their existing
>>customers.
>
>Of course. But then iPhone will have become more of a commodity, with
>price pressure Apple doesn't feel now.
Yep. There's no way to stop that from happening. AT&T might saturate
the market for iPhones, it might find itself competing on the basis of
price of other providers are able to sell iPhones, or it jump on the
Android wagon and dilute the desirability of the iPhone. None of
these are particularly desirable. My guess(tm) is that AT&T will go
on the defensive and do something drastic in order to retain existing
customers, such as a "free" iPhone 4 if they sign up for another two
or more years. Customer retention is much easier than finding a
replacement.
John Navas
<vnjh669dj0uhf1jbj...@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 22:12:38 -0700, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>But it will probably also turn the iPhone into more of a commodity,
>>making it harder for Apple to maintain its margins both with carriers
>>and with consumers. It's a potentially big tradeoff with a good deal of
>>risk.
>
>Think scorched earth. If AT&T can't own the iPhone market, they might
>be able to reduce it to a commodity, thus reducing the profitability
>for the entire industry. Let the discounting continue until nobody is
>making money. Then, AT&T can buy the wreckage from the losers.
That would certainly be consistent with it's management style. :)
>>[shrug]
>
>It's difficult to determine what AT&T is thinking. Is even more
>difficult to determine if they are thinking.
Those fat rich white Texans are actually very very smart.
Whitacre did an amazing job at GM, just as he did at AT&T.
>>Of course. But then iPhone will have become more of a commodity, with
>>price pressure Apple doesn't feel now.
>
>Yep. There's no way to stop that from happening. AT&T might saturate
>the market for iPhones, it might find itself competing on the basis of
>price of other providers are able to sell iPhones, or it jump on the
>Android wagon and dilute the desirability of the iPhone. None of
>these are particularly desirable. My guess(tm) is that AT&T will go
>on the defensive and do something drastic in order to retain existing
>customers, such as a "free" iPhone 4 if they sign up for another two
>or more years. Customer retention is much easier than finding a
>replacement.
My guess(tm) is that AT&T has a multi-pronged strategy:
* Rapidly bring on very cool Androids, perhaps from Sony Ericsson,
like the Android 3 mobile PSP, as well as tablets.
* Get in bed with HP on new WebOS products.
* Get in bed with Microsoft on Windows 7 Mobile.
* Get exclusives on different new Apple handsets, like iPhone Mini,
Ipad Mini, etc.
* Offer retention incentives, perhaps even "free" iPhone 4 phones, or
discounted rates.
I think the biggest impact of a Verizon iPhone, if that happens, will be
on Sprint, not AT&T.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> I think the biggest impact of a Verizon iPhone, if that happens, will be
> on Sprint, not AT&T.
unless it's offered on all four usa carriers.
Dennis Ferguson
> This is rather odd:
> Wireless margins improved in the second quarter of 2010 despite
> record Apple iPhone activations.
>
> I read this as suggesting that AT&T is losing money on every iPhone it
> sells.
In the quarter that they sell the phone, probably (and certainly for
sales in the last week of the quarter, like most of those iPhones
they activated in Q2). This is like every subsidized phone sold by
any carrier, they lose money up front but make it back over the term
of the contract (or from the ETF).
Dennis Ferguson
ordosincorporated
cellphone boosters. I smell a plot. Ditto with home automation.
Government agency doesnt like making its agents jobs hard made by a home
automation system. They went the way of wireless cable and the cyclotron.
The device that extracted gold from ordinary sand. They pay off the people
to keep their product off the market and the investors get screwed.
John F Kennedy said it well when he said that "every time you scientists
come up with a new technological advance, us politicans have to create an
agency to deal with it. These days it should be an international agency".
Politics is power over property.
|======================================================|
Email: ordosinc...@gmail.com REF#: 36752
GSM Quadband / Blackberrys / HTC hero / HT EVO
NO contract, NO deposits, NO credit check!
Wow Mobile now has 4 major carriers:
GSM-S,PCS-S,PCS-M,CDMA ---- GSM-S now with 4g!
** Android phones have tethering option! **
http://www.wowmobilemall.com
|======================================================|
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:bbma66l2tcp3djd1n...@4ax.com...
> The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a law
> that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a
> wireless operator or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move
> that could impact thousands of end users already owning such devices.
>
> MORE:
> <http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20100223/FCC_WIRELESS_REGULATIONS/100229986/1086>
> or <http://goo.gl/slfV>
John Navas
<4c7721b4$0$4836$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
"ordosincorporated" <mg...@ij.net> wrote:
>Politics is power over property.
In this country, it's been property as power over people.
News
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:23:50 -0400, in
> <4c7721b4$0$4836$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> "ordosincorporated" <mg...@ij.net> wrote:
>
>> Politics is power over property.
>
> In this country, it's been property as power over people.
>
Or as Dylan put it, "Money doesn't talk, it swears".