1 Million Downloads of Apple's Safari Browser!
Bill Gates
Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
Safari for Windows Public Beta Downloads Top 1 Million in First 48 Hours
CUPERTINO, California‹June 14, 2007‹Apple® today announced that more
than 1 million copies of Safari for Windows were downloaded in the
first 48 hours since the free public beta was made available on Monday.
Safari 3 is the world¹s fastest and easiest-to-use browser, and is
available as a free download at
Safari 3 is the fastest browser running on Windows, rendering web pages
up to twice as fast as IE 7 and up to 1.6 times faster than Firefox 2,
based on the industry standard iBench tests.* Safari 3 supports all
modern Internet standards including HTML, CSS, JavaScript, SVG and Java.
Safari updates are delivered seamlessly through Apple¹s Software Update,
and the first update for Safari for Windows Public Beta which fixes some
early reported bugs was released last night.
Safari 3 for Windows requires Windows XP or Windows Vista, a minimum of
256 MB of memory and a system with at least a 500 MHz Intel Pentium
processor.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/06/14safari.html
-
Early reports are it has a much cleaner interface than FireFox, much
faster than Internet Explorer and since it's an Apple product it's more
polished than either IE or FireFox.
Download it here for XP, Vista, or OSX!
Peter Köhlmann
< snip bullshit >
And again, OxRetard hides behind a nym, because his ususal handle "Oxford"
is another nym for incredible stupidity
This in addition to posting his drivel to a group which has nothing at all
to do with his trolling subject, as "Safari for windows" is *not* of any
interest for linux users.
For that matter, for windows users too.
Those already have enough badly written software. To pile another heap of
garbage (in this case from apple) on it would add insult to injury
Need any more proof that a typical Mac-user is stupid beyond imagination?
--
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.
Snit
f4tcvk$nso$00$2...@news.t-online.com on 6/14/07 11:52 PM:
> Bill Gates (OxRetard, a typical Mac-user) nymshifted:
>
> < snip bullshit >
>
> And again, OxRetard hides behind a nym, because his ususal handle "Oxford"
> is another nym for incredible stupidity
>
> This in addition to posting his drivel to a group which has nothing at all
> to do with his trolling subject, as "Safari for windows" is *not* of any
> interest for linux users.
Then why do you keep trying to pull in CSMA folks by posting your drivel to
CSMA?
> For that matter, for windows users too.
> Those already have enough badly written software. To pile another heap of
> garbage (in this case from apple) on it would add insult to injury
See how you beg for responses from CSMA folks. You *want* CSMA folks to
post to COLA. Why?
> Need any more proof that a typical Mac-user is stupid beyond imagination?
Gee, can you incite a little more?
--
€ 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"
Kadaitcha Man
joyless. They were the most needless creatures living. Ye writhed:
>
> < snip bullshit >
>
So you're not dead then? Pity.
> again, OxRetard hides behind a nym, because his ususal handle
> "Oxford" is another nym for incredible stupidity
>
> This in addition to posting his drivel to a group which has nothing
> at all to do with his trolling subject, as "Safari for windows" is
> *not* of any interest for linux users.
>
> For that matter, for windows users too.
> Those already have enough badly written software. To pile another
> heap of garbage (in this case from apple) on it would add insult to
> injury
>
> Need any more proof that a typical Mac-user is stupid beyond
> imagination?
A typical Mac-user is, by definition, a Linux user. Linux makes you fucking
stupid.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits
"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1...@registered.motzarella.org
Jij bent een muffe versgebefte kontridder.
John Bailo
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
0 revenue.
Nice try to deflect press from the imminent failure of the iPhone.
AAPL at $40 shortly.
BearItAll
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>
That's a heck of a lot of bandwidth,
1,000,000 x 28,000,000
In just 48 hours.
I suspect that they would have been a lot of worried IT folk mopping sweat
off their foreheads in the background somewhere.
The spec of Safari looks ok, not startling really. Except one interesting
part, user resizeable text boxes.
As rendering is always done locally, then why not go the extra mile and
allow the local user to adjust things. Drag flashy adverts out of the way
or off the page entirely, drag listboxes so you can see more of the
contents. Extend a richtextbox while you are working in it, there must be
quite a few ideas around this that would make sense.
I like that idea, I wonder why no one has thought of it before. It doesn't
say in the write up on the Apple site, but I suspect that this might be
happening inside one of those flash windows. It doesn't have to be though,
I would have thought that the browsers could do the same.
All those aspx pages with their overlapping divs because it can't cope well
with a mixture of code created controls and static controls dragged onto
the page, you could drag whole divs out the way so you can see the text
that they are obscuring.
In the end though what I personally would like in browsers, is each page in
an entirely different thread, so that if they is bad code on one site that
closes the page there is no need to close the entire browser and all the
other pages that didn't have a problem.
BearItAll
Has the iPhone failed? I should think that for the iPod folk the iPhone
could be much lighter on their pockets, instead of carrying an mp3 player
and a phone. So just for that it is likely to do at least as well as the
iPod, eventually.
It's only problem as far as I can see is that they are so many mp3 playing
telephones of various designs, that I think it is likely that the iPhone
will only take from the iPod people, a sort of upgrade.
Plus, as with my PDA/phone, you don't have to be tied to Apple music
formats. Mine can play just about anything I throw at it, music or video.
Some of the telephone handsets I was looking at recently are really very
good, Sony, Ericson and others. I think that Apple will do well with the
iPhone, but they had better not be lax with the continued development of
it, because in comparison to other handsets they already look a little bit
tame.
cc
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlm...@t-online.de> Thou
> joyless. They were the most needless creatures living. Ye writhed:
>
> > Bill Gates (OxRetard, a typical Mac-user) nymshifted:
>
> > < snip bullshit >
>
> > And<BITCHSLAP>
>
> So you're not dead then? Pity.
>
> > again, OxRetard hides behind a nym, because his ususal handle
> > "Oxford" is another nym for incredible stupidity
>
> > This in addition to posting his drivel to a group which has nothing
> > at all to do with his trolling subject, as "Safari for windows" is
> > *not* of any interest for linux users.
>
> > For that matter, for windows users too.
> > Those already have enough badly written software. To pile another
> > heap of garbage (in this case from apple) on it would add insult to
> > injury
>
> > Need any more proof that a typical Mac-user is stupid beyond
> > imagination?
>
> A typical Mac-user is, by definition, a Linux user. Linux makes you fucking
> stupid.
Petey Kohlmann is a robot designed by the German army during WWII. He
is programmed to spew insults and filth in the traditional, uptight,
naziesque, German way, all while making absolutely no sense. There's a
reason they lost the war.
Fred Tehbot
<1181902504....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
> Petey Kohlmann is a robot designed by the German army during WWII.
Warum sind deine Eltern nicht einfach die fünf Minuten spazieren
gegangen?
> He is programmed to spew insults and filth in the traditional,
> uptight, naziesque, German way, all while making absolutely no sense.
Im Wörterbuch unter 'grotesk' stehen Deine Titten.
> There's a reason they lost the war.
You have no reason, Möpse.
Kadaitcha Man
fat and greasy citizens. Ye drizzled:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> Thou
>> joyless. They were the most needless creatures living. Ye writhed:
>>> Bill Gates (OxRetard, a typical Mac-user) nymshifted:
>>>
>>> < snip bullshit >
>>>
>>> And<BITCHSLAP>
>>
>> So you're not dead then? Pity.
>>
>>> again, OxRetard hides behind a nym, because his ususal handle
>>> "Oxford" is another nym for incredible stupidity
>>>
>>> This in addition to posting his drivel to a group which has nothing
>>> at all to do with his trolling subject, as "Safari for windows" is
>>> *not* of any interest for linux users.
>>>
>>> For that matter, for windows users too.
>>> Those already have enough badly written software. To pile another
>>> heap of garbage (in this case from apple) on it would add insult to
>>> injury
>>>
>>> Need any more proof that a typical Mac-user is stupid beyond
>>> imagination?
>>
>> A typical Mac-user is, by definition, a Linux user. Linux makes you
>> fucking stupid.
>
I'm immune.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits
"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1...@registered.motzarella.org
Straks vind ik je nog een ingebeelde onnatuurlijke hondelul.
Kadaitcha Man
Thou bankrupt ill singer. Ye beamed:
:)
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member:
Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Usenet Ruiner Lits
Top Assholes on the Net Lits
Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits
AUK psychos and felons Lits
#2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits
"Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an
alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up."
AOK in news:ermdlu$nli$1...@registered.motzarella.org
Jij tweedehandse ploerterige neukkabouter.
Clogwog
news:f4tcvk$nso$00$2...@news.t-online.com...
> Bill Gates (OxRetard, a typical Mac-user) nymshifted:
>
>< snip bullshit >
>
> And again, OxRetard hides behind a nym, because his ususal handle "Oxford"
> is another nym for incredible stupidity
>
> This in addition to posting his drivel to a group which has nothing at all
> to do with his trolling subject, as "Safari for windows" is *not* of any
> interest for linux users.
>
> For that matter, for windows users too.
> Those already have enough badly written software. To pile another heap of
> garbage (in this case from apple) on it would add insult to injury
Das geht dich einen feuchten Scheissdreck an, du verdammter Arschficker!
Verpiss Dich!
>
> Need any more proof that a typical Mac-user is stupid beyond imagination?
> --
> Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.
--
Peter Köhlmann, PIK (Peter Idiot Kohlmann), the usenet Nazi and COLA
regular. His known aliases include: Mark Kent, Flatfish, John Bailo, Oxford,
Simon Cooke, Cola_masturbater, Cola_moderator, Jeff Relf, William Poaster,
Roy Culley, Tholan, Snit, and the list goes on. Also see PIK aka Peter
Köhlmann, a confessed closet homosexual, in his lederhosen
http://www.angelfire.com/psy/doctorbill/Culley_aka_Kohlmann_aka_Kent.jpg
Andrea
>
> Early reports are it has a much cleaner interface than FireFox, much
> faster than Internet Explorer and since it's an Apple product it's more
> polished than either IE or FireFox.
>
> Download it here for XP, Vista, or OSX!
>
> http://www.apple.com/safari/
This piece of crap cannot render a single page correctly on system set
to other language than English. So why should I use Safari?
--
| Andrea | http://czerwona-linia.blogspot.com/ |
------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as overkill, there is
only "where's the ammunition" question.
TheLetterK
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
Firefox trumps that easily. They're at *300 million* from Firefox's
servers alone. That does not include almost all Linux users (who usually
get their installation packages from third party repositories),
site-wide installations, or downloads from third party servers.
Snit
x8Bci.1194$kR2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net on 6/15/07 11:47 AM:
Hasn't Firefox has been out more than a week?
--
€ Different version numbers refer to different versions
€ Macs are Macs and Apple is still making and selling Macs
€ The early IBM PCs and Commodores shipped with an OS in ROM
ed
news:im-2701C0.00...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
a download does not a new user make- i've downloaded it to try it out, but i
sure as hell ain't going to use it unless there's some DRASTIC improvements
coming...
<snip>
Alan Baker
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
No, but it does indicate a level of interest, doesn't it?
--
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."
ed
news:alangbaker-4F0BE...@news.telus.net...
> In article <qZBci.40674$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Gates" <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
>> news:im-2701C0.00...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
>> > Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>> > Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>
>> a download does not a new user make- i've downloaded it to try it out,
>> but i
>> sure as hell ain't going to use it unless there's some DRASTIC
>> improvements
>> coming...
>>
>> <snip>
>
> No, but it does indicate a level of interest, doesn't it?
or curiosity to check out the bestest, fasted browser ever. only to see,
yeah, not so much. ;D
7
> A
Appil gonna sue BSD developers one million times to compensate.
Never contribute code in BSD to Appil Corporation or to
anyone else. Appil has shown it can threaten and sue BSD developers.
BSD code becomes less free as time goes by.
Use the GPL license instead.
Bill Gates
yes, but that is over a much longer time period, Apple is the fastest
growing browser today BY FAR, FireFox can't keep up with "Apple".
I just won't happen.
chrisv
> In article <qZBci.40674$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Gates" <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
>> news:im-2701C0.00...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>
>> a download does not a new user make- i've downloaded it to try it
>> out, but i sure as hell ain't going to use it unless there's some
>> DRASTIC improvements coming...
>>
>> <snip>
>
> No, but it does indicate a level of interest, doesn't it?
Apple stuff? More like morbid curiosity.
Bill Gates
> That's a heck of a lot of bandwidth,
>
> 1,000,000 x 28,000,000
>
> In just 48 hours.
apple routinely does that times 80x every single day.... you have to
remember they are largely using Xserves, not DeLL and Microsoft server
products. Only Unix can handle this type of volume, MS products can't.
> I suspect that they would have been a lot of worried IT folk mopping sweat
> off their foreheads in the background somewhere.
no, a million downloads of a 16MB file is microscopic for Apple IT.
> The spec of Safari looks ok, not startling really. Except one interesting
> part, user resizeable text boxes.
>
> As rendering is always done locally, then why not go the extra mile and
> allow the local user to adjust things. Drag flashy adverts out of the way
> or off the page entirely, drag listboxes so you can see more of the
> contents. Extend a richtextbox while you are working in it, there must be
> quite a few ideas around this that would make sense.
>
> I like that idea, I wonder why no one has thought of it before. It doesn't
> say in the write up on the Apple site, but I suspect that this might be
> happening inside one of those flash windows. It doesn't have to be though,
> I would have thought that the browsers could do the same.
>
> All those aspx pages with their overlapping divs because it can't cope well
> with a mixture of code created controls and static controls dragged onto
> the page, you could drag whole divs out the way so you can see the text
> that they are obscuring.
>
> In the end though what I personally would like in browsers, is each page in
> an entirely different thread, so that if they is bad code on one site that
> closes the page there is no need to close the entire browser and all the
> other pages that didn't have a problem.
yes, Safari will certainly be the most advanced browser Windows users
will have access to for the next few decades, Apple has always been good
about updating it so it's a win win for people that want to see the
"real web" for the very first time.
http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
here is the developer FAQ:
Kier
> yes, Safari will certainly be the most advanced browser Windows users
> will have access to for the next few decades, Apple has always been good
> about updating it so it's a win win for people that want to see the
> "real web" for the very first time.
The next few *decades*? Are you on some new drug that no one's got wind of
yet? No one has any real idea what's going to be around in twenty years or
so, but it's pretty sure whatever it is will be way more advanced than
your silly little browser.
--
Kier
Frank
>
> yes, Safari will certainly be the most advanced browser Windows users
Uhhh no...Steve said the iPhone will be, not Safari (he doesn't like
Safari...says it "clashes" with his wardrobe).
Frank
Jon Harrop
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
From our website hits, Safari just took fourth place with only 5% market
share.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
Jon Harrop
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/02/firefox-300-million-downloads/
Bill Gates
> Bill Gates wrote:
> > Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> > Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>
> http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/02/firefox-300-million-downloads/
eeeek!
FireFox is in serious trouble if they could only get 300 million
downloads in 2.5ish years.
Safari will dawrf FireFox very quickly.
RIP FireFox!
TheLetterK
0 to 5 would be a huge growth rate. That doesn't mean they're poised to
overtake others.
Bill Gates
but it does put them in the primary position to become Number 2. FireFox
just doesn't have the resources to compete against Apple, Safari will be
Number 2, unseating FireFox quite soon. Apple is the 2nd biggest player
in the computer market, Mozzila, maybe 62nd.
Bill Gates
Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about to
announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
as it is in the PC space, then you have iPod No 1 again, so you through
in Safari and while you only may get to No 2 in the next few years, that
lead will be cemented for decades since Apple is the only other serious
PC player.
TheLetterK
> Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>> http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/02/firefox-300-million-downloads/
>
> eeeek!
>
> FireFox is in serious trouble if they could only get 300 million
> downloads in 2.5ish years.
Firefox 2.0 got over 2 million downloads in the first 24 hours. Safari
only managed half that in twice the time. Even Firefox 1.0 managed a
million on the first day.
Belphegor
Do you really think the amount of downloads tells you how good a
browser is?
who cares about the amount of downloads now?? that is soo 1990s.
Downloads don't mean a thing, I downloaded Firefox at least 3 times
and I like the plug ins, but I use Safari most of the time because it
does not accumulate task bars like Word or Firefox.
Damian
> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>
> Hours
<snip public masturbating>
That certainly supports what David Hannum said back in 1869, doesn't it.
TheLetterK
> On Jun 16, 2:27 am, TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>> Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
>>>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>>>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>>> http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/02/firefox-300-million-downloads/
>>> eeeek!
>>> FireFox is in serious trouble if they could only get 300 million
>>> downloads in 2.5ish years.
>> Firefox 2.0 got over 2 million downloads in the first 24 hours. Safari
>> only managed half that in twice the time. Even Firefox 1.0 managed a
>> million on the first day.
>
> Do you really think the amount of downloads tells you how good a
> browser is?
No, I don't. But Oxtard apparently does, since he brought up the subject.
>
> who cares about the amount of downloads now?? that is soo 1990s.
>
> Downloads don't mean a thing, I downloaded Firefox at least 3 times
> and I like the plug ins, but I use Safari most of the time because it
> does not accumulate task bars like Word or Firefox.
So disable the task bars, idiot.
Belphegor
oooooh, I have to because you call me names? Don't you think you have
lost the argument already?
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>>>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>>> Firefox trumps that easily. They're at *300 million* from Firefox's
>>>> servers alone. That does not include almost all Linux users (who usually
>>>> get their installation packages from third party repositories),
>>>> site-wide installations, or downloads from third party servers.
>>> yes, but that is over a much longer time period, Apple is the fastest
>>> growing browser today BY FAR,
>> 0 to 5 would be a huge growth rate. That doesn't mean they're poised to
>> overtake others.
>
> but it does put them in the primary position to become Number 2.
No, it doesn't.
A) Download rates generally fall off over time.
B) Many, many, many people who downloaded Safari aren't going to use Safari.
C) An astronomical growth rate starting from 1 will still take a *long*
time to supplant a well established alternative, if the alternative has
a decent growth rate.
Not to mention, Firefox did a lot better on it's first few hours than
Safari has.
> FireFox
> just doesn't have the resources to compete against Apple,
Yeah, it has the resources to make Safari completely irrelevant.
> Safari will be
> Number 2, unseating FireFox quite soon.
It's not going to manage that feat, even after 5 years.
> Apple is the 2nd biggest player
> in the computer market,
Which means nothing in the browser market. They have virtually no
sizable presence in that market--the only reason people even have their
product is because Apple bundles it with their computers.
Snit
> Bill Gates wrote:
>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>>> TheLetterK <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bill Gates wrote:
>>>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>>>>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>>>> Firefox trumps that easily. They're at *300 million* from Firefox's
>>>>> servers alone. That does not include almost all Linux users (who usually
>>>>> get their installation packages from third party repositories),
>>>>> site-wide installations, or downloads from third party servers.
>>>> yes, but that is over a much longer time period, Apple is the fastest
>>>> growing browser today BY FAR,
>>> 0 to 5 would be a huge growth rate. That doesn't mean they're poised to
>>> overtake others.
>>
>> but it does put them in the primary position to become Number 2.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> A) Download rates generally fall off over time.
> B) Many, many, many people who downloaded Safari aren't going to use Safari.
> C) An astronomical growth rate starting from 1 will still take a *long*
> time to supplant a well established alternative, if the alternative has
> a decent growth rate.
>
> Not to mention, Firefox did a lot better on it's first few hours than
> Safari has.
You had me going until this - can you show where this is true?
>
>> FireFox just doesn't have the resources to compete against Apple,
>
> Yeah, it has the resources to make Safari completely irrelevant.
Support?
>
>> Safari will be Number 2, unseating FireFox quite soon.
>
> It's not going to manage that feat, even after 5 years.
Maybe... maybe not.
>> Apple is the 2nd biggest player in the computer market,
>
> Which means nothing in the browser market. They have virtually no
> sizable presence in that market--the only reason people even have their
> product is because Apple bundles it with their computers.
Same with IE, eh? Even with Firefox, at least according to you (above),
many people get it bundled with their distro.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Bill Gates
> >>>> Bill Gates wrote:
> >>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
> >>>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
> >>>> Firefox trumps that easily. They're at *300 million* from Firefox's
> >>>> servers alone. That does not include almost all Linux users (who usually
> >>>> get their installation packages from third party repositories),
> >>>> site-wide installations, or downloads from third party servers.
> >>> yes, but that is over a much longer time period, Apple is the fastest
> >>> growing browser today BY FAR,
> >> 0 to 5 would be a huge growth rate. That doesn't mean they're poised to
> >> overtake others.
> >
> > but it does put them in the primary position to become Number 2.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Not always true.
> A) Download rates generally fall off over time.
But some increase as did iTunes at 500 million and QuickTime over 700
million.
> B) Many, many, many people who downloaded Safari aren't going to use Safari.
Yes, but a good 80% will switch over.
> C) An astronomical growth rate starting from 1 will still take a *long*
> time to supplant a well established alternative, if the alternative has
> a decent growth rate.
Perhaps to supplant IE, but FireFox is not well established and is very
vulnerable now.
> Not to mention, Firefox did a lot better on it's first few hours than
> Safari has.
>
> > FireFox
> > just doesn't have the resources to compete against Apple,
>
> Yeah, it has the resources to make Safari completely irrelevant.
No it doesn't... it's open source, so be default very weak. Look at
linux, it failed in the marketplace and at this point has no chance to
recover.
> > Safari will be
> > Number 2, unseating FireFox quite soon.
>
> It's not going to manage that feat, even after 5 years.
Want to bet? Even if Apple only gets 9% of the PC market in that time,
safari usage on Windows will at least be 8% so that wipes out FireFox by
a simple default.
> > Apple is the 2nd biggest player
> > in the computer market,
>
> Which means nothing in the browser market. They have virtually no
> sizable presence in that market--the only reason people even have their
> product is because Apple bundles it with their computers.
Safari is a strong No. 3 right now, and FireFox just isn't well enough
programmed to go up against Safari. We'll see of course, but FireFox as
it looks now is a goner.
Jon Harrop
> Perhaps to supplant IE, but FireFox is not well established and is very
> vulnerable now.
From our website statistics, Firefox is more popular than IE.
>> Yeah, it has the resources to make Safari completely irrelevant.
>
> No it doesn't... it's open source, so be default very weak. Look at
> linux, it failed in the marketplace and at this point has no chance to
> recover.
and Linux has more market share than Mac.
>> Which means nothing in the browser market. They have virtually no
>> sizable presence in that market--the only reason people even have their
>> product is because Apple bundles it with their computers.
>
> Safari is a strong No. 3 right now,
Looks more like a weak number 4 to me, after Opera.
ZnU
Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Bill Gates wrote:
> > Perhaps to supplant IE, but FireFox is not well established and is very
> > vulnerable now.
>
> From our website statistics, Firefox is more popular than IE.
From my site statistics, Safari is the number one browser, and 60% of
visitors are Mac users. My site is not strictly Mac-related site. It's
targeted to a specific segment of the content creation market.
Just goes to show how completely meaningless overall market share
figures can be when you're looking at one market in particular.
--
"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
Kier
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:22:08 -0600, Bill Gates wrote:
>>
>> > yes, Safari will certainly be the most advanced browser Windows users
>> > will have access to for the next few decades, Apple has always been good
>> > about updating it so it's a win win for people that want to see the
>> > "real web" for the very first time.
>>
>> The next few *decades*? Are you on some new drug that no one's got wind of
>> yet? No one has any real idea what's going to be around in twenty years or
>> so, but it's pretty sure whatever it is will be way more advanced than
>> your silly little browser.
>
> Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about to
> announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being taken
up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider, doesn't
have 3G, uses a touchscreen, and will probably break if you drop it (and
if you don't think that matters, you've never seen people use moboiles in
the real world). And if won't have Safari, either.
> as it is in the PC space, then you have iPod No 1 again, so you through
> in Safari and while you only may get to No 2 in the next few years, that
> lead will be cemented for decades since Apple is the only other serious
> PC player.
In twenty years, a lot can happen. The PC itself may be dead. New
technology is certain to have arisen. Your precious Apple may have
vanished into history like os many other players.
--
Kier
Alan Baker
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
That would imply (as so many do) that Apple is "dying" (that is what
"morbid" means, you know).
Sorry. Wrong.
Julie
> In article <46730955$0$7186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <qZBci.40674$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill Gates" <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:im-2701C0.00...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
>>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No.
>>>>> 2 Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>>>
>>>> a download does not a new user make- i've downloaded it to try it
>>>> out, but i sure as hell ain't going to use it unless there's some
>>>> DRASTIC improvements coming...
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> No, but it does indicate a level of interest, doesn't it?
>>
>> Apple stuff? More like morbid curiosity.
>
> That would imply (as so many do) that Apple is "dying" (that is what
> "morbid" means, you know).
You need to look up the meanings of 'morbid' - it was used correctly by
chrisv. (BTW, you look like a fool.)
> --
> Sorry. Wrong.
You should use that as your sig.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Damian
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> In article <46730955$0$7186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> In article <qZBci.40674$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Bill Gates" <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:im-2701C0.00...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
>>>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No.
>>>>>> 2 Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>>>>
>>>>> a download does not a new user make- i've downloaded it to try it
>>>>> out, but i sure as hell ain't going to use it unless there's some
>>>>> DRASTIC improvements coming...
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> No, but it does indicate a level of interest, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> Apple stuff? More like morbid curiosity.
>>
>> That would imply (as so many do) that Apple is "dying" (that is what
>> "morbid" means, you know).
>
> You need to look up the meanings of 'morbid' - it was used correctly
> by chrisv. (BTW, you look like a fool.)
>
>> --
>> Sorry. Wrong.
>
> You should use that as your sig.
The next time Alan gets something right will be his first.
Bill Gates
> > Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about to
> > announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
>
> Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
> pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being taken
> up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider, doesn't
> have 3G,
in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
dynamics of the market. there is a G3 iPhone, so that's not the issue,
it's simply the main "market" can't utilize it yet.
> uses a touchscreen, and will probably break if you drop it (and
> if you don't think that matters, you've never seen people use moboiles in
> the real world). And if won't have Safari, either.
nah, it won't break when you drop it, all that stuff is 8-10 foot
engineered for multiple drops, the screen is german flexible glass,
(Balda) so again, you aren't going to get breakage.
> > as it is in the PC space, then you have iPod No 1 again, so you through
> > in Safari and while you only may get to No 2 in the next few years, that
> > lead will be cemented for decades since Apple is the only other serious
> > PC player.
>
> In twenty years, a lot can happen. The PC itself may be dead. New
> technology is certain to have arisen. Your precious Apple may have
> vanished into history like os many other players.
Well, Apple is the only remaining PC firm, it's longevity is assured for
at least the next 80 years for the simple fact the generation that uses
them, now starts at 10-20 years old.
Kier
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about to
>> > announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
>>
>> Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
>> pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being taken
>> up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider, doesn't
>> have 3G,
>
> in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
> dynamics of the market. there is a G3 iPhone, so that's not the issue,
> it's simply the main "market" can't utilize it yet.
The US is not the only market. The mobile phone market is truly global.
>
>> uses a touchscreen, and will probably break if you drop it (and
>> if you don't think that matters, you've never seen people use moboiles in
>> the real world). And if won't have Safari, either.
>
> nah, it won't break when you drop it, all that stuff is 8-10 foot
> engineered for multiple drops, the screen is german flexible glass,
> (Balda) so again, you aren't going to get breakage.
Well, that's nice to know. But will the touchscreen prove to be popular,
or a pain? A lot of people navigate their keypads by feel, which is
impossible with a touchscreen.
>
>> > as it is in the PC space, then you have iPod No 1 again, so you through
>> > in Safari and while you only may get to No 2 in the next few years, that
>> > lead will be cemented for decades since Apple is the only other serious
>> > PC player.
>>
>> In twenty years, a lot can happen. The PC itself may be dead. New
>> technology is certain to have arisen. Your precious Apple may have
>> vanished into history like os many other players.
>
> Well, Apple is the only remaining PC firm, it's longevity is assured for
> at least the next 80 years for the simple fact the generation that uses
> them, now starts at 10-20 years old.
In the next 80 years I would expect technology to have moved on somewhat
from today, which renders your statement rather null and void. Just
because it's here today doesn't mean it'll be here in the future.
--
Kier
Peter Köhlmann
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about
>> > to announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World
>> > just
>>
>> Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
>> pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being
>> taken up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider,
>> doesn't have 3G,
>
> in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
> dynamics of the market. there is a G3 iPhone, so that's not the issue,
> it's simply the main "market" can't utilize it yet.
>
You mean that a market *at* *least* the size of the US one (europe) which
has 3G should put up with that iPhone garbage then?
Do you know what *all* german carriers say about apple and its negotiation
tactics regarding the iPhone?
"extremely arrogant assholes" is the nice version
If they continue that way, apple has to market that toy all by themselves
here, as currently nobody is going to accept those stupid confitions
< snip more OxRetard drivel >
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
John Bailo
> in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
> dynamics of the market. there is a G3 iPhone, so that's not the issue,
> it's simply the main "market" can't utilize it yet.
The market has already been moving towards WiMax which does far more than
G3.
>> uses a touchscreen, and will probably break if you drop it (and
>> if you don't think that matters, you've never seen people use moboiles in
>> the real world). And if won't have Safari, either.
>
> nah, it won't break when you drop it, all that stuff is 8-10 foot
> engineered for multiple drops, the screen is german flexible glass,
> (Balda) so again, you aren't going to get breakage.
How about let it slide between the seats of an airliner?
>> > as it is in the PC space, then you have iPod No 1 again, so you through
>> > in Safari and while you only may get to No 2 in the next few years,
>> > that lead will be cemented for decades since Apple is the only other
>> > serious PC player.
>>
>> In twenty years, a lot can happen. The PC itself may be dead.
Snore...they said that 20 years ago.
>> New
>> technology is certain to have arisen. Your precious Apple may have
>> vanished into history like os many other players.
Apple's a lame duck...they're coasting on last year's ipod sales. They
threw up the Safari smokescreen to hide the imminent failure of the iPhone.
> Well, Apple is the only remaining PC firm, it's longevity is assured for
> at least the next 80 years for the simple fact the generation that uses
> them, now starts at 10-20 years old.
What generation? Half of the market for Apples is over 55!
Jon Harrop
> You mean that a market *at* *least* the size of the US one (europe) which
> has 3G should put up with that iPhone garbage then?
Indeed, North America has only 5% of the world's population and only 10% of
the world's mobile phone users:
http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=15236
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Alexander Terekhov
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
[...]
> Do you know what *all* german carriers say about apple and its negotiation
> tactics regarding the iPhone?
-----
Germany
T-Mobile, O2 and Vodafone take stock in for the iPhone. E-Plus didn’t
want to comment, T-Mobile is mainly interested because of the EDGE
(Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution) capabilities as the company is
the only provider of that technology in Germany, and Vodafone criticizes
the lack of UMTS functionality but does not want to fall behind and
appraises Apple’s entry into the phone market as an importent signal
that people are ready for upper-class devices.
-----
May 22nd, 2007
Here's more:
-----
Hey folks, I don't know what it's worth, but I just spoke to a O2
Germany representative and he assured me, that o2 Germany will be the
exclusive carrier of the iPhone in Germany. He said that it is expected
before christmas (ok we already knew this) and that he didn't have any
more details at the moment besides the fact that it WILL be offered with
a 2-year contract just like in the us.
Just for those curious to why I called them, I was going to quit my
contract with them because I assumed T-Mobile would be the carrier for
the iPhone, but apparently I was wrong.
Besides, I don't think that they would assure you such a thing if it
wasn't already in dry cloth.
I sure hope he's telling the truth, but he didn't have a reason to lie
to me, because he put my contract on hold until the iphone comes out,
which would be pointless....
just my 2 cents.
-----
regards,
alexander.
--
"Live cheaply," he said, offering some free advice. "Don't buy a house,
a car or have children. The problem is they're expensive and you have
to spend all your time making money to pay for them."
-- Free Software Foundation's Richard Stallman: 'Live Cheaply'
Jesus
> BearItAll <s...@rassler.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's a heck of a lot of bandwidth,
>
> > 1,000,000 x 28,000,000
>
> > In just 48 hours.
>
> apple routinely does that times 80x every single day.... you have to
> remember they are largely using Xserves, not DeLL and Microsoft server
> products. Only Unix can handle this type of volume, MS products can't.
That must be why Microsoft's download center and Windows/Microsoft
Update are always going down every few minutes. You should suggest to
them that they use Xserve servers.
Jesus
I take it you took into account people who re-downloaded Safari
because they published a security update only three days later, right?
Jesus
Firefox 3 kicks Apple's and Microsoft's asses with ease. Have you
been smoking something?
Peter Köhlmann
OxRetard is drinking the Mac-Kool-aid in big quantities
That is, when he is not sniffing at that glue-bag
He is just, after all, a typical Mac user
--
Twenty Percent of Zero is Better than Nothing.
-- Walt Kelly
chrisv
> Andrea <a.libiszewski@gazeta_nospam.pl> wrote:
>
>> Check before you write something stupid. Take a look at the
>> screenshoots below:
>>
>> http://pellaeon.cba.pl/screens/firefox.png
>>
>> http://pellaeon.cba.pl/screens/safari.png
>>
>>
>> Do you see the difference? Anyone blind enough to NOT see it?
>>
>>
>> As for now, Safari for Windows is the worst web browser I've ever
>> seen.
>
> for very obscure, "non-standard" websites perhaps, but if it's coded
> correctly, it will work correctly with safari.
You're getting shrill in your defense of a worthless product.
Bill Gates
> > No it doesn't... it's open source, so be default very weak. Look at
> > linux, it failed in the marketplace and at this point has no chance to
> > recover.
>
> and Linux has more market share than Mac.
not on this planet. currently Mac share averages around 4% world wide,
Linux averages .7% - do the math.
Bill Gates
> > Safari will dawrf FireFox very quickly.
> >
> > RIP FireFox!
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
>
> I take it you took into account people who re-downloaded Safari
> because they published a security update only three days later, right?
a download is a download, FireFox counts them exactly in the same way.
Jesus
...and your source for this is?
Jesus
Mozilla wasn't claiming world domination based on early download
statistics. Firefox wasn't counting anything... Firefox is just a
browser, dipshit.
chrisv
> You're getting shrill in your defense of a worthless product.
Ignore the forger.
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about to
>>> announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
>> Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
>> pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being taken
>> up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider, doesn't
>> have 3G,
>
> in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
> dynamics of the market.
Does that "dynamic" predict a seizable number of people spending $600 on
a phone, because somehow I can't see it?
I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "People are not happy in stinking hellholes of abject poverty, what
| is true is that once you cross subsistence ... additional increases
| in wealth have virtually no effect on well-being ... This is worth
| knowing in case you have a choice between "X" and making more
| money, almost certainly "X" is what you should choose."
| - Barry Schwartz
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
04:20:54 up 11 days, 16:06, 2 users, load average: 0.35, 0.43, 0.35
Steve de Mena
Bill Gates
> > in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
> > dynamics of the market.
>
> Does that "dynamic" predict a seizable number of people spending $600 on
> a phone, because somehow I can't see it?
>
> I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
> ... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
the price starts at $500 not $600, so don't try and stretch the truth.
and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
$166 for the first full internet communicator.
so please learn what the iPhone IS before you comment again.
http://www.apple.com/iphone/phone/
http://www.apple.com/iphone/ipod/
http://www.apple.com/iphone/internet/
StormDrain
> Verily I say unto thee, that Bill Gates spake thusly:
> > Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about to
> >>> announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
> >> Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
> >> pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being taken
> >> up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider, doesn't
> >> have 3G,
> >
> > in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
> > dynamics of the market.
>
> Does that "dynamic" predict a seizable number of people spending $600 on
> a phone, because somehow I can't see it?
I'll have to see the service contract for iPhone but I spend over $600
(~$28/month min) during a 2 year period on a land line I seldom use
anymore. IF I add in my current internet access (~20/month) $600 for an
iPhone doesn't seem like that much for what it can replace. I think I
can dump most of my communications/computing/entertainment equipment and
in the long run save quite a bit of money.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this product. It could easily turn
into the personal computer I've been looking for. Plus, it's from a
major vendor and will definitely work with a Mac, no more third party
wishing :)
> I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
> ... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
--
SD
"Such warnings, however, have to contend with the Mac
OS X's impressive lack of major security incidents."
-That's the bottom line.
Jonathan Byrd
"[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message news:16mek4-...@sky.matrix...
> Verily I say unto thee, that Bill Gates spake thusly:
>> Kier <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Kier - You clearly don't understand the dynamics here. Apple is about
>>>> to
>>>> announce the iPhone putting it at the top of the Cell Phone World just
>>> Don't be so sure of that. I just read an article in today's paper,
>>> pointing out all the cons for the iPhone which may inhibit its being
>>> taken
>>> up by a lot of people. It's expesnive, tied to one phone provider,
>>> doesn't
>>> have 3G,
>>
>> in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
>> dynamics of the market.
>
> Does that "dynamic" predict a seizable number of people spending $600 on
> a phone, because somehow I can't see it?
>
> I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
> ... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
What an idiotic statement. There are thousands of people currently on the
waiting list to get their iPhone. So your statement of "nobody is going to
pay $600 for a phone" has already been proven wrong.
You have no idea what you're talking about - Go recompile your kernel or
something.
Jon Harrop
>> not on this planet. currently Mac share averages around 4% world wide,
>> Linux averages .7% - do the math.
>
> ...and your source for this is?
chrisv
That's 'frogger'... Ignore the frogger. Anyhoo, "Bill Gates" *IS* getting
shrill in his defense of a worthless product; just like a big bloused girl.
Jon Harrop
> What an idiotic statement. There are thousands of people currently on the
> waiting list to get their iPhone. So your statement of "nobody is going to
> pay $600 for a phone" has already been proven wrong.
There must be about a billion mobile phone users. I think he was just saying
that Apple's market share in phones will also be insignificant.
Jon Harrop
> and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
> basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
> $166 for the first full internet communicator.
So the target market is the intersection of mobile phone users and iPod
users?
Rozzie Wilton
> Bill Gates wrote:
>> and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
>> basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
>> $166 for the first full internet communicator.
>
> So the target market is the intersection of mobile phone users and iPod
> users?
Admittedly the iPhone looks like the ultimate gadget but the question
remains what is the monthly subscription going to cost?
TheLetterK
> On Jun 16, 4:03 am, TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>> Belphegor wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 2:27 am, TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>>>>>>> Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
>>>>> eeeek!
>>>>> FireFox is in serious trouble if they could only get 300 million
>>>>> downloads in 2.5ish years.
>>>> only managed half that in twice the time. Even Firefox 1.0 managed a
>>>> million on the first day.
>>> Do you really think the amount of downloads tells you how good a
>>> browser is?
>> No, I don't. But Oxtard apparently does, since he brought up the subject.
>>
>>
>>
>>> who cares about the amount of downloads now?? that is soo 1990s.
>>> Downloads don't mean a thing, I downloaded Firefox at least 3 times
>>> and I like the plug ins, but I use Safari most of the time because it
>>> does not accumulate task bars like Word or Firefox.
>> So disable the task bars, idiot.
>
> oooooh, I have to because you call me names? Don't you think you have
> lost the argument already?
If you can't figure out how to disable toolbars in Firefox, then you
*are* an idiot. It might even be an insult to idiots.
[H]omer
>
>>> in the US, 3G isn't widespread enough to be usable, so please learn the
>>> dynamics of the market.
>> Does that "dynamic" predict a seizable number of people spending $600 on
>> a phone, because somehow I can't see it?
>>
>> I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
>> ... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
>
> the price starts at $500 not $600, so don't try and stretch the truth.
$600 is one of the two quoted prices; that is neither untrue nor an
exaggeration, so if quoting $600 is stretching the truth, then one might
just as easily say that quoting $500 is obfuscating it.
> and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
> basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
> $166 for the first full internet communicator.
>
> so please learn what the iPhone IS before you comment again.
I've seen, read, and heard the hype just like everyone else, so yes -
I know exactly what the iPhone is. It's what in passé terms used to be
called a "convergence device".
I had a digital camera like that once (also played music). The trouble
is, the software to enable uploading music to that device is now
Abandonware, and no longer works with current versions of Windows (or
the included media player of the time), and since it will only play
encrypted audio, and that format is a proprietary standard (TwinVQ or
suchlike) the chances of me ever using that particular function on that
device ever again are less than zero.
I wonder what kind of longevity one could expect from the iPhone ... or
any other gimmicky device of it's ilk.
If I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a fad. In fact no, strike that
... I won't buy a phone at all, I'll get it for free under contract,
like everyone else does ... unless you're an Apple customer that is.
Apart from anything else, why would I need yet another DAP when I
already own one? Yet another reason why the concept of a convergence
device is flawed, but then presumably Apple expects their drooling
customer base to walk around with an iGadget in every pocket, where each
gadget has it's own unique purpose ... but also plays music. How many
DAPs does a body need, one wonders?
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "People are not happy in stinking hellholes of abject poverty, what
| is true is that once you cross subsistence ... additional increases
| in wealth have virtually no effect on well-being ... This is worth
| knowing in case you have a choice between "X" and making more
| money, almost certainly "X" is what you should choose."
| - Barry Schwartz
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
17:42:48 up 12 days, 5:28, 1 user, load average: 1.32, 1.42, 1.37
Kier
> I had a digital camera like that once (also played music). The trouble
> is, the software to enable uploading music to that device is now
> Abandonware, and no longer works with current versions of Windows (or
> the included media player of the time), and since it will only play
> encrypted audio, and that format is a proprietary standard (TwinVQ or
> suchlike) the chances of me ever using that particular function on that
> device ever again are less than zero.
That's becoming less common nowadays, though. Manufacturers are beginning
to realise that kind of things won't fly in today's world.
>
> I wonder what kind of longevity one could expect from the iPhone ... or
> any other gimmicky device of it's ilk.
I don't honestly think that's going to be a big problem for a few years
yet. It's certainly a handsome device, I just don't know if it's really
going to be the winner they think it is. There are a huge number of very
good mobiles on the market these days.
--
Kier
Mitch
> I've seen, read, and heard the hype just like everyone else, so yes -
> I know exactly what the iPhone is. It's what in passé terms used to be
> called a "convergence device".
And it competes against many existing devices (called smart phones, not
'convergence devices') which often sell for a lot more.
You wrote that NO ONE was going to pay so much for such a thing, when
people already do, by the thousands.
> I wonder what kind of longevity one could expect from the iPhone ... or
> any other gimmicky device of it's ilk.
A true concern. Apple seems to have better longevity than almost
everyone else, with much better consistency and a much stronger
customer engagement than almost everyone in it's industries. That's got
to be good enough to make customers feel comfortable.
> If I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a fad. In fact no, strike that
> ... I won't buy a phone at all, I'll get it for free under contract,
> like everyone else does ... unless you're an Apple customer that is.
Like everyone else does? Your generalizations make you look like an
idiot. I would venture to say half of cell phone users pay for their
phones. A significant number, according to the industry, pay for smart
phones. It is already obvious people will pay $300 for music players.
> Apart from anything else, why would I need yet another DAP when I
> already own one?
You're talking about a specific user, now -- and no one suggested that
a specific person (you) needed to get one. As far as I can tell, they
only said that many people will decide to.
> Yet another reason why the concept of a convergence
> device is flawed, but then presumably Apple expects their drooling
> customer base to walk around with an iGadget in every pocket, where each
> gadget has it's own unique purpose ... but also plays music. How many
> DAPs does a body need, one wonders?
Yes; correct and good thinking. Yet, there are customers wanting to do
just that, and Apple may have built one that is actually good at it.
You may not think it's reasonable or smart, you may not think it is
necessary, and you may have decided all of the things you own already
cover you specifically. But that doesn't affect ANY of the other
opinions.
Mitch
Gates <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote:
> > Does that "dynamic" predict a seizable number of people spending $600 on
> > a phone, because somehow I can't see it?
> >
> > I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
> > ... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
>
> the price starts at $500 not $600, so don't try and stretch the truth.
>
> and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
> basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
> $166 for the first full internet communicator.
>
> so please learn what the iPhone IS before you comment again.
He's wrong even in his old, narrow view.
There are thousands of people paying WELL OVER $600 for phones -- smart
phones that sell around $700 and $800 are also common enough.
They also haven't those features, NOBODY has the screen resolution or
quality of features, and reviews agree -- why are these people making
themselves look so foolish by making poor generalizations and
condemnations.
iPhone still might not be a major deal -- if you don't like it, hope
for that, and you can get some redemption for your opinion of it.
Or convince someone why it isn't a good product with facts.
But convince someone based on misguided stupidity, and you might end up
with glass in your shoes or sugar in your tank.
Bill Gates
> >> I like Apple, I think they are truly great innovators, but face reality
> >> ... nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone.
> >
> > the price starts at $500 not $600, so don't try and stretch the truth.
>
> $600 is one of the two quoted prices; that is neither untrue nor an
> exaggeration, so if quoting $600 is stretching the truth, then one might
> just as easily say that quoting $500 is obfuscating it.
yes, but you were attempting to unfairly embellish your point. if you
would "nobody is going to pay $500 for a phone", that would of been
valid. or even "nobody is going to pay $500-$600 for a phone" would also
be valid, but to try and trick the reader starting at $600 is a LIE.
> > and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
> > basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
> > $166 for the first full internet communicator.
> >
> > so please learn what the iPhone IS before you comment again.
>
> I've seen, read, and heard the hype just like everyone else, so yes -
> I know exactly what the iPhone is. It's what in passé terms used to be
> called a "convergence device".
I haven't seen much hype, most all the stories have been factual.
> I had a digital camera like that once (also played music). The trouble
> is, the software to enable uploading music to that device is now
> Abandonware, and no longer works with current versions of Windows (or
> the included media player of the time), and since it will only play
> encrypted audio, and that format is a proprietary standard (TwinVQ or
> suchlike) the chances of me ever using that particular function on that
> device ever again are less than zero.
yes, and the chances of Apple not supporting the iPhone 10 years into
the future are basically zero. Apple doesn't do that. the original iPod
is very well supported and it's already at 6 years, the iPhone 10 years
or more. Plus the iPod/iPhone fully supports non-encrypted data / MP3's
so you know you are always safe.
> I wonder what kind of longevity one could expect from the iPhone ... or
> any other gimmicky device of it's ilk.
Haven't seen any gimmicks yet for the iPhone, i'm sure they'll be some,
i saw a nice leather case, but no fuzzy dice. The feature set looks very
serious, no playing around at least from Apple's standpoint.
> If I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a fad. In fact no, strike that
> ... I won't buy a phone at all, I'll get it for free under contract,
> like everyone else does ... unless you're an Apple customer that is.
Kinda like when printers said "the Internet is just a fad". Remember
that one! Nah, the iPhone will be how all cell phones work going
forward. Just like how everyone uses the Mac interface & mouse today,
everyone will use the iPhone multi-touch tech once Apple's 200 patents
run out.
> Apart from anything else, why would I need yet another DAP when I
> already own one? Yet another reason why the concept of a convergence
> device is flawed, but then presumably Apple expects their drooling
> customer base to walk around with an iGadget in every pocket, where each
> gadget has it's own unique purpose ... but also plays music. How many
> DAPs does a body need, one wonders?
Yes, but this will be the first DAP that actually works correctly, so
that is pretty cool in itself. It might be too high end for your needs,
but I'm sure there will be a baby iPhone in the years to come that will
better fit your mindset.
Bill Gates
> Admittedly the iPhone looks like the ultimate gadget but the question
> remains what is the monthly subscription going to cost?
we already know. $39.99 if you want the data plan, and $39.99 for 800
minutes (or something) and you get rollover minutes with that.
so really all we don't know is how much of the "data" will work over
regular 802.11 "without" ATT's plan. that's the only unknown.
Bill Gates
> >> not on this planet. currently Mac share averages around 4% world wide,
> >> Linux averages .7% - do the math.
> >
> > ...and your source for this is?
>
> apple.com
apple never reports % numbers. those numbers probably come from the www.
Jesus
Probably? You're the one who wrote those statistics. Are you saying
you pulled them out of your ass?
Snit
im-F4F37C.17...@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net on 6/17/07 4:01 PM:
Is that the only known unknown or may be there be some unknown unknowns or
is even that unknown?
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Bill Gates
> > apple never reports % numbers. those numbers probably come from the www.
>
> Probably? You're the one who wrote those statistics. Are you saying
> you pulled them out of your ass?
those are well established estimates, so why so ignorant?
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
you can't disagree with facts.
Jesus
Why did you say your source was apple.com, then?
Bill Gates
> > > > apple never reports % numbers. those numbers probably come from the www.
> >
> > > Probably? You're the one who wrote those statistics. Are you saying
> > > you pulled them out of your ass?
> >
> > those are well established estimates, so why so ignorant?
> >
> > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
> >
> > you can't disagree with facts.
>
> Why did you say your source was apple.com, then?
i never said anything about apple being the source, that must of been a
miscommunication from another poster.
Jon Harrop
> Why did you say your source was apple.com, then?
Stop rushing him. He's got to post "the facts" on Wikipedia. ;-)
AZ Nomad
>Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No. 2
>Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
Download != install.
Just because a million people were curious enough to download it doesn't
mean that most won't delete it afterwards.
Frankly, safari sucks. I hate the window controls (I don't want a fucking
mac; I'd own one if I liked them) and it's inability to block flash
animations makes it an eyesore.
Bill Gates
> Frankly, safari sucks. I hate the window controls (I don't want a fucking
> mac; I'd own one if I liked them) and it's inability to block flash
> animations makes it an eyesore.
even version 1.0 allowed you to block flash, check your prefs. Safari is
the most gnarly free web browser you can own. well, probably Camino is,
but you don't have access to that.
ed
news:170620071251257742%mi...@hawaii.rr...
> In article <im-709C68.06...@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net>, Bill
> Gates <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote:
>> and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
>> basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
>> $166 for the first full internet communicator.
>>
>> so please learn what the iPhone IS before you comment again.
>
> He's wrong even in his old, narrow view.
> There are thousands of people paying WELL OVER $600 for phones -- smart
> phones that sell around $700 and $800 are also common enough.
yeah? the most expensive smart phones i see from the major us carriers:
cingular: $350.
t-mobile: $350
verizon: $400
sprint: $500
where are all these 'common enough' phones that are selling for $700-$800?
<snip>
Steve Hix
"Julie" <invalid.@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <46730955$0$7186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <qZBci.40674$5j1....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>> "ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Bill Gates" <i...@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:im-2701C0.00...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
> >>>>> Apple is now well on its way to unseat FireFox as the world's No.
> >>>>> 2 Internet Browser - 1,000,000 new users in the last 48 hours!
> >>>>
> >>>> a download does not a new user make- i've downloaded it to try it
> >>>> out, but i sure as hell ain't going to use it unless there's some
> >>>> DRASTIC improvements coming...
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> No, but it does indicate a level of interest, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> Apple stuff? More like morbid curiosity.
> >
> > That would imply (as so many do) that Apple is "dying" (that is what
> > "morbid" means, you know).
>
> You need to look up the meanings of 'morbid' - it was used correctly by
> chrisv. (BTW, you look like a fool.)
In which chrisv implied that Apple was dead or dying.
Which it isn't.
Tim Adams
Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> Jesus wrote:
> > Why did you say your source was apple.com, then?
>
> Stop rushing him. He's got to post "the facts" on Wikipedia. ;-)
Actually, if you do a little google search, you will find that it was Jon Harrop
that added in the reference to Apple.com. Now we see him trying to support the
idea it was the posted Bill Gates' that did it.
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Peter Hayes
> In article <r05gk4-...@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
> >
> > I've seen, read, and heard the hype just like everyone else, so yes -
> > I know exactly what the iPhone is. It's what in passé terms used to be
> > called a "convergence device".
>
> I haven't seen much hype, most all the stories have been factual.
You can hype and still be factually accurate - it's called marketing.
> > I had a digital camera like that once (also played music). The trouble
> > is, the software to enable uploading music to that device is now
> > Abandonware, and no longer works with current versions of Windows (or
> > the included media player of the time), and since it will only play
> > encrypted audio, and that format is a proprietary standard (TwinVQ or
> > suchlike) the chances of me ever using that particular function on that
> > device ever again are less than zero.
>
> yes, and the chances of Apple not supporting the iPhone 10 years into
> the future are basically zero. Apple doesn't do that.
Oh, I don't know. Apple sure don't support MacOS 9 and earlier on
today's hardware. That's only six or seven years since the release of OS
X. You also forgot the NuBus fiasco.
The legal support time in the EU is five years after the product is
withdrawn from the market. So if the iPhone bombs that'll be 2013...
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Peter Hayes
Estimates are not facts, by definition. You'll have to do better than
that...
[H]omer
>> $600 is one of the two quoted prices; that is neither untrue nor an
>> exaggeration, so if quoting $600 is stretching the truth, then one might
>> just as easily say that quoting $500 is obfuscating it.
>
> yes, but you were attempting to unfairly embellish your point. if you
> would "nobody is going to pay $500 for a phone", that would of been
> valid. or even "nobody is going to pay $500-$600 for a phone" would also
> be valid, but to try and trick the reader starting at $600 is a LIE.
Arguing that "nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone" is neither a
trick, a lie, nor any kind of embellishment. Apple will sell a $600
model, and it is my contention that people will find that too expensive.
The fact that this opinion disturbs you to the point that you'd claim
it's a "lie" is your problem. For that matter, I think even $500 is too
much.
>> If I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a fad. [...]
> Kinda like when printers said "the Internet is just a fad".
No, I was thinking more along the lines of WAP/GPRS/3G services, which
have bombed in the UK, and continue to do so. It turns out that people
really don't want to browse the web and walk along the street at the
same time (whilst bumping into lampposts). They also don't want to pay
extortionate prices for mobile data, as we are currently expected to do.
Certainly the current trend is that nearly all mobile phones are also
convergence devices, and many people do use those additional features
... as gimmicks, but they also own a real digital camera and a real DAP,
since those facilities on the phone are grossly inadequate.
The biggest problem seems to be that using a convergence device's
peripheral function drains battery power at an expedited rate, thus
leaving the device's primary (important) function inoperable. I've
experienced this personally, much to my frustration, when browsing WAP
sites on a mobile, only to discover that I can no longer make or receive
calls because the battery is dead.
This is why I assert that if I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a
gadget ... and I will use it only as a phone for that reason. Any
peripheral functions are mere gimmicks.
>> Apart from anything else, why would I need yet another DAP when I
>> already own one? Yet another reason why the concept of a convergence
>> device is flawed, but then presumably Apple expects their drooling
>> customer base to walk around with an iGadget in every pocket, where each
>> gadget has it's own unique purpose ... but also plays music. How many
>> DAPs does a body need, one wonders?
>
> Yes, but this will be the first DAP that actually works correctly, so
> that is pretty cool in itself. It might be too high end for your needs,
> but I'm sure there will be a baby iPhone in the years to come that will
> better fit your mindset.
Well the DAP I currently own is an 30GB 6th Gen. iPod, so are you
claiming this doesn't work correctly, is too low-end, and is a "baby"
device?
How will it benefit me to spend $500-$600 on an iPhone when I already
own an iPod and a perfectly good mobile phone?
If wanting to flush money down the toilet is the right "mindset", then
you're right, maybe I'm just not cut-out to be an iPhone owner.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "People are not happy in stinking hellholes of abject poverty, what
| is true is that once you cross subsistence ... additional increases
| in wealth have virtually no effect on well-being ... This is worth
| knowing in case you have a choice between "X" and making more
| money, almost certainly "X" is what you should choose."
| - Barry Schwartz
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
14:02:31 up 13 days, 1:48, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.11, 0.09
jerryeveretts
> and no, $500 for just a "phone" would be very expensive. but you are
> basically paying $166 for the Phone, $166 for the Widescreen iPod, and
> $166 for the first full internet communicator.
The "First" full internet communicator?????
How about bluetooth, WiFi, 3G, and a real web browser, plus the
ability to use plain old office documents, works with any exchange or
pop server, run hundreds... or thousands of apps, plays Mp3's and a
wide array of videos, touch screen and a qwerty keyboard, camera,
video camera, usb port, sd expansion, all available in 2005. The
iphone is hardly a first at anything.
jerryeveretts
> yes, and the chances of Apple not supporting the iPhone 10 years into
> the future are basically zero. Apple doesn't do that. the original iPod
> is very well supported and it's already at 6 years, the iPhone 10 years
> or more.
the emate was introduced 9 years ago... how is he current support for
that.. dork.
BearItAll
> Verily I say unto thee, that Bill Gates spake thusly:
>> In article <r05gk4-...@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>>> $600 is one of the two quoted prices; that is neither untrue nor an
>>> exaggeration, so if quoting $600 is stretching the truth, then one might
>>> just as easily say that quoting $500 is obfuscating it.
>>
>> yes, but you were attempting to unfairly embellish your point. if you
>> would "nobody is going to pay $500 for a phone", that would of been
>> valid. or even "nobody is going to pay $500-$600 for a phone" would also
>> be valid, but to try and trick the reader starting at $600 is a LIE.
>
> Arguing that "nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone" is neither a
> trick, a lie, nor any kind of embellishment. Apple will sell a $600
> model, and it is my contention that people will find that too expensive.
> The fact that this opinion disturbs you to the point that you'd claim
> it's a "lie" is your problem. For that matter, I think even $500 is too
> much.
>
>>> If I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a fad. [...]
>
>> Kinda like when printers said "the Internet is just a fad".
>
> No, I was thinking more along the lines of WAP/GPRS/3G services, which
> have bombed in the UK, and continue to do so. It turns out that people
> really don't want to browse the web and walk along the street at the
> same time (whilst bumping into lampposts). They also don't want to pay
> extortionate prices for mobile data, as we are currently expected to do.
>
It is very handy on a train or when bored shitless in a hotel somewhere. But
they don't have to keep the masts up just for me.
But as most hotels I have stayed at, probably in the last year or a bit
more, in UK and Germany, all had wifi Internet access, it's nicer to take
the laptop.
I've never got to grips with laptoping on a train, I always feel like the
person in the seat behind is watching me. I know I would be if I was sat
there.
Bill Gates
yes, yes, not ready yet in the US, and yes.
ah, you are thinking too old school about "documents", i guess you still
print on paper too? no need for exchange compatibility, that's a dead
end for businesses so why continue to support it? it will run 1000's of
apps in due time, yes mp3's videos, touch screen, iphone bluetooth
keyboards will be everywhere within 6 months, it has usb syncing, no
need for SD when you have 802.11
no other phone has this many features for such a low price.
get with the modern era jerry or don't play the game.
Bill Gates
> > yes, but you were attempting to unfairly embellish your point. if you
> > would "nobody is going to pay $500 for a phone", that would of been
> > valid. or even "nobody is going to pay $500-$600 for a phone" would also
> > be valid, but to try and trick the reader starting at $600 is a LIE.
>
> Arguing that "nobody is going to pay $600 for a phone" is neither a
> trick, a lie, nor any kind of embellishment. Apple will sell a $600
> model, and it is my contention that people will find that too expensive.
> The fact that this opinion disturbs you to the point that you'd claim
> it's a "lie" is your problem. For that matter, I think even $500 is too
> much.
but that is just like saying "nobody is going to buy a $25,000
diamond"... "what were they thinking!" totally ignoring there is a $500
diamond you could buy as well. you're not an honest debater and I called
you on it.
> >> If I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a fad. [...]
>
> > Kinda like when printers said "the Internet is just a fad".
>
> No, I was thinking more along the lines of WAP/GPRS/3G services, which
> have bombed in the UK, and continue to do so. It turns out that people
> really don't want to browse the web and walk along the street at the
> same time (whilst bumping into lampposts). They also don't want to pay
> extortionate prices for mobile data, as we are currently expected to do.
as it has been said before "customers don't know what they want, they
only "know" when they see it" the iPhone is this century's product (so
far) that fits this "want".
> Certainly the current trend is that nearly all mobile phones are also
> convergence devices, and many people do use those additional features
> ... as gimmicks, but they also own a real digital camera and a real DAP,
> since those facilities on the phone are grossly inadequate.
>
> The biggest problem seems to be that using a convergence device's
> peripheral function drains battery power at an expedited rate, thus
> leaving the device's primary (important) function inoperable. I've
> experienced this personally, much to my frustration, when browsing WAP
> sites on a mobile, only to discover that I can no longer make or receive
> calls because the battery is dead.
yes, we'll see, apple will have 300 minutes of talk time with the iphone
which sounds fair enough, not sure how much of the 5 hours of video/web
access will cut into that. apple is the world's master at maximizing
battery life, so it will be interesting to see what the real world life
will be like. it's not like any WAP before it, so it should be around
double the battery life of anything else, so that is good for you.
> This is why I assert that if I want a phone, I'll buy a phone, not a
> gadget ... and I will use it only as a phone for that reason. Any
> peripheral functions are mere gimmicks.
apple always does this, it starts on the full featured side of things,
then brings out models with more limited function. expect to see just a
"phone" in 3 years and just a "ipod" in the same form factor in 6 months.
> > Yes, but this will be the first DAP that actually works correctly, so
> > that is pretty cool in itself. It might be too high end for your needs,
> > but I'm sure there will be a baby iPhone in the years to come that will
> > better fit your mindset.
>
> Well the DAP I currently own is an 30GB 6th Gen. iPod, so are you
> claiming this doesn't work correctly, is too low-end, and is a "baby"
> device?
i miss understood that you DAP was actually an iPod. So if you don't
need the extra features, the iPhone isn't for you.
> How will it benefit me to spend $500-$600 on an iPhone when I already
> own an iPod and a perfectly good mobile phone?
Less complexity, less cables, less weight, easier syncing. Sell your
iPod and Phone and get an iPhone. or stay a double gadget freak.
> If wanting to flush money down the toilet is the right "mindset", then
> you're right, maybe I'm just not cut-out to be an iPhone owner.
yeah, it sounds like you don't want the best in life, which is okay and
the LOT of many people on the planet.
Bill Gates
> > I haven't seen much hype, most all the stories have been factual.
>
> You can hype and still be factually accurate - it's called marketing.
true, but at least from Apple we haven't seen any of that, their current
TV ads are low key and simply explain how it works. No hype here:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/ads/
> > > I had a digital camera like that once (also played music). The trouble
> > > is, the software to enable uploading music to that device is now
> > > Abandonware, and no longer works with current versions of Windows (or
> > > the included media player of the time), and since it will only play
> > > encrypted audio, and that format is a proprietary standard (TwinVQ or
> > > suchlike) the chances of me ever using that particular function on that
> > > device ever again are less than zero.
> >
> > yes, and the chances of Apple not supporting the iPhone 10 years into
> > the future are basically zero. Apple doesn't do that.
>
> Oh, I don't know. Apple sure don't support MacOS 9 and earlier on
> today's hardware. That's only six or seven years since the release of OS
> X. You also forgot the NuBus fiasco.
Yes, but Apple supported various versions of Classic for 20 years,
that's quite a feat, nothing to the level MS or IBM ever did. As an
aside, an young apple genius wanted me to find him 6.0.8 on 800K disks
recently. Yep, Apple still supports them, they are right on their
servers for free. Now that is SUPPORT!
> The legal support time in the EU is five years after the product is
> withdrawn from the market. So if the iPhone bombs that'll be 2013...
In california it's 7 years, so the EU doesn't even measure up to how
long Apple supports its products.