Hey Oxford - more reality
Ness Net
and killing off cellular in the future. The reality is that it NEVER will.
It looks like it's going backwards....
If they can't get it up and running in Geek central, it isn't EVER going to
happen everywhere - like nut job fanboy says it will.
The ambitious plan to blanket 1,500 square miles of California's
Silicon Valley with a wireless network may be on the edge of stalling,
still unable to raise funds for even two one-square-mile.test sites,
according to a recent column in the San Jose Mercury News.
As an added bonus: WiMax is not looking good either.
Sprint Nextel and Clearwire on Friday said they have mutually
agreed to terminate the letter of intent to build a nationwide WiMAX
network that they signed in July.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/110907-sprint-clearwire-kill-joint-wimax-project.html?page=2
Oxford
The Ghost of General Lee
<colalo...@verysmart.com> wrote:
>go educate yourself:
>
>http://www.fon.com/en/
Ness Net
"Oxford" <colalo...@verysmart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-34FF...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are.
No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
also.
And having a good laugh - at your expense.
Oxford
> > go educate yourself:
> >
> > http://www.fon.com/en/
>
> Just the fact that you bring up FON, shows just how clueless you really are.
> No education needed - I'm well aware of the fact it isn't going anywhere
> also.
ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That
speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_keen_on_a_world_where_people_share_WiFi
someday, you'll catch up with me...
nospamatall
I just want to make sure this is correct. You are happy that
alternatives to the rip-off cellular networks are not progressing very well?
Amdy
Todd Allcock
> I just want to make sure this is correct. You are happy that
> alternatives to the rip-off cellular networks are not progressing very
well?
>
> Amdy
How is cellular a "rip-off?" In cellulars' neaely thirty years we've
seen rates fall from $1/minute to 5-cents or less, as well as the effect
competitive pressure from cellular has had on landline rates- lower
rates, unlimited long distance plans, packages that include calling
features like Caller-ID, voicemail, etc.
Cellular is cheaper than ever, plus has done more to control landline
rates than VoIP ever has.
"Rip-off?" Sorry, I don't see it.
The free market is an amazing thing- if an effective, profitable, and
cheaper alternative to cellular was currently possible, a large tech
company unable to break into cellular would've launched it already.
Todd Allcock
> ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing.
Gee, he's in buiness that sells computers and music downloads, and wants
cheap or free ubiquitous intenet access to spread. Hmm, I can't imagine
why. I hear Jif and Skippy support the development of cars that are
powered by Peanut Butter...
> That
> speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
>
> http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_keen_on_a_world_where_people_share_WiFi
> someday, you'll catch up with me...
"Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Socialism has the
same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
is the producers incentive to produce?
FON tries to combat this with it's "members" concept, but it seems to me
FON is more interested in selling it's $40 routers than actually
spreading free wi-fi around. So, I could use the $40 to get free WiFi
from the 9 FON members in the Denver Metro, or use it to buy 7 months of
net access from my cell provider. Decisions, decisions...
The Ghost of General Lee
<elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
And there is a security problem with it, too. I wonder whose door
they'll knock on when your neighbor gets "caught" posting kiddie porn
through *your* open AP?
nospamatall
> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
Socialism has the
> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> is the producers incentive to produce?
Socialism has nothing to do with it.
nospamatall
> In article <fha8hn$ksd$2...@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>> "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
>> hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
>>
>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>
>
>> Socialism has the
>> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
>> is the producers incentive to produce?
>
> Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
> free, everyone is paying for it.
Socialism would be the state owning all of it and running it badly so it
was equally useless to all except the party members who would have their
own high-bandwidth access. Socialism has as much to do with caring and
sharing in the real world as Christianity has to do with love and tolerance.
Andy
The Ghost of General Lee
wrote:
>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>
>You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
IOW, you don't get it unless you don't need it, right? I'm betting
you didn't think that through before clicking 'send'.
Todd Allcock
> > The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature.
If
> > all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long
before
> > five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>
> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
In the "FON" model, yes. However, my dear Oxfiord, you've only been
flogging FON recently. Prior to that you were pushing free open access.
> > Socialism has the
> > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally,
what
> > is the producers incentive to produce?
>
> Socialism has nothing to do with it.
You're right- it's more like good old Amway-style multi-level-marketing.
You get "paid" with free access in return for buying the $49 "sales kit"
and conning everyone you know into doing the same.
If FON was about open access, you wouldn't need their $40 router- you
could setup your own open slaved AP connected to your "real" closed one.
All they'd have to supply would be configuration instructions. Of
course, there'd be no money in for them then, which kind of illustrates
the problem with "free WiFi"- everyone loses interest when "free" = "no
profit opportunity"!
Todd Allcock
> > You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>
> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
(including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
cancel my cell service!
> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become
an
> iBrick?
Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is
available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away...
> This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable.
True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these
$40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear
ffom the face of the Earth! ;-)
> When
> Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> go away.
Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and
"floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable!
I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling
oxygen...
Oxford
> > And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
>
> He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
> configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
> every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
> in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
> website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
> I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
> (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
> cancel my cell service!
But if Apple does it, you'll have 1000's within a few months, plus the
1000's of open wifi spots already in Denver.
> > What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> > using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> > Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become
> an
> > iBrick?
>
> Nah, if you print out the FON map of your area, I'm sure free access is
> available in a 100-square foot area no more than 15 or 20 miles away...
no, it comes with a range extender for that $40, so you'd have 300 feet
or so of coverage. 1000's of feet with other antennas.
> > This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable.
>
> True, but I still wished I thought of it. They've sold hundreds of these
> $40-50 APs and will probably sell hundreds more before they disappear
> ffom the face of the Earth! ;-)
ah, they have a hell of a lot more than 1000's of these, FON is spanish
and they are mainly in Europe. but if Apple latches on, people like
Dell, Linksys, Netgear and HP will quickly copy them and make the party
even wider.
their partner list is rather incredible, so something BIG is about to
happen. Sequoia Capital alone says it all...
http://www.fon.com/en/info/ourInvestorPartners
> > When
> > Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> > go away.
>
> Only to be replaced by his new diatribe of how 3G was "broken" and
> "floundering" until Apple came along and made it viable!
> I swear the poor lad is holding his breath until Apple starts selling
> oxygen...
3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes
them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the
States, if not there will be a better solution that Apple will be the
first to use on a wide scale. Just like they were the first to use
802.11 on a mass scale.
-
Oxford
> If FON was about open access, you wouldn't need their $40 router- you
> could setup your own open slaved AP connected to your "real" closed one.
> All they'd have to supply would be configuration instructions. Of
> course, there'd be no money in for them then, which kind of illustrates
> the problem with "free WiFi"- everyone loses interest when "free" = "no
> profit opportunity"!
you can already do that on the Mac... without FON...
FON just sells a ready made kit with extender for $40, seems fair enough.
Mitch
<colalovesosx-34FF...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalo...@verysmart.com> wrote:
> go educate yourself:
>
> http://www.fon.com/en/
Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
in other locations.
Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
Mitch
<colalovesosx-E766...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> wrote:
> ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing. That
> speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
>
> http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_keen_on_a_world_where_people_share_WiFi
>
> someday, you'll catch up with me...
Oxford, you have invented and made broad claims.
No one has to catch up -- it's all imagination.
There is no reality there.
Now, instead of making wild broad claims about what you GUESS might
happen, someday, you _could have been_ discussing the directions
companies were taking, the ways technology could make it happen, the
ways businesses were changing their plans to work within a 'new
paradigm.'
But normally, you just make vast insipid statements.
No, there's nothing to 'catch up' to.
Most people have to slow down ad back up just to see if you really made
the latest silly claim.
Mitch
<b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> > Socialism has the
> > same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> > is the producers incentive to produce?
>
> Yep, this is Oxtard's wet dream. Internet Access Socialism.
> Everyone sharing their "free" wifi with everyone else. Except it's not
> free, everyone is paying for it.
>
> Sorry, count me out. I want MY bandwidth for MY use, not my neighbor's
> use.
Not me. The problem I have with it isn't that I would be sharing.
(Seriously, why would anyone object to that?)
The problem I see with it is that it doesn't do ANY of the 'free' part.
EVERYONE IS PAYING!
Peter Hayes
> 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone.
That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
> It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Oxford
> No one has to catch up -- it's all imagination.
> There is no reality there.
yes, this is only in my imagination...
http://www.fon.com/en/info/whatsFon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FON
catch a clue mitch... this is very much a real idea, and 10,000's of
free spots exist at this very moment...
Oxford
> Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
> pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
no, all you do is buy a router with a range extender for $40, then you
get FREE access to all other people doing the same. It's a one time cost.
> Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
> or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
no, you aren't understanding the concept. it's FREE to use any of the
others if you have a fon router yourself. so for $40 bucks "one time",
you have access to all other fon routers worldwide.
it's the shape of things to come, especially if Apple does it on a much
larger scale.
-
Oxford
> > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone.
>
> That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
> > It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
>
> So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
for what? there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
Oxford
> > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone. It kills battery life and makes
> > them too bulky. If 3G is christened by SJ it will be popular in the
> > States,
>
> There you have it, folks. Apple will make 3G "popular", because no
> one is using it now!
well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
from the pc to the mp3 player, now the multi-touch cell phone, apple led
the way that became the standard.
nospamatall
> In article <fham4j$ti9$1...@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospa...@iol.ie>
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
>>> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
>>> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore?
>> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>
> Ministry Of Open Networks monitoring my AP?
>
> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an
> iBrick?
If you're really interested why don't you find out instead of displaying
your ignorance here?
> This pie-in-the-sky scheme is completely silly and unworkable. When
> Apple releases the 3G iPhone, all this talk of "free wifi phones" will
> go away.
>
> Bob Campbell
nospamatall
Are you really that thick? If you're away from home you can't access
your router over wi-fi.
nospamatall
> At 12 Nov 2007 18:13:29 -0500 Bob Campbell wrote:
>
>>> You don't get free access unless you have an open network.
>> And how, pray tell, is this monitored/enforced?
>
> He's talking about FON.com, where theycon you into buying a their pre-
> configured "FON" wireless AP for $40, which then grants you access to
> every other sucker's, er, um, member's FON router. If you don't don't buy
> in, you don't get on their closed "open" network. According to their
> website, they have 9 victims, er, um, "members" in the Denver metro. If
> I signup, I'll have free wifi access in 10 backyards and 10 driveways
> (including mine) all accross Denver! I can't wait toall T-Mobile and
> cancel my cell service!
>
I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.
Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
systems and nothing else.
Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
The Ghost of General Lee
wrote:
Todd's scenario, to which you replied, mentioned nothing about being
away from home, you dolt.
Peter Hayes
> noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > 3G isn't ready yet for a Cell Phone.
> >
> > That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
>
> at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
> thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
> a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
> > > It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
> >
> > So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> > when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
>
> for what?
For your iPhone, with its non-user-replaceable battery.
> there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
Never mind. When the US moves up to 3G you'll see what I mean.
Until then, happy leeching, assuming you find an open wifi...
And while you're leeching, just remember if someone uses that connection
for kiddie porn the cops will come calling, and you'll have to persuade
them it wasn't you.
Not worth the hassle, IMO.
Oxford
> I didn't really get in to this to defend FON which in my opinion has
> numerous problems. All I am doing is challenging those who defend the
> bastards who have ripped us off with expensive cellular 'service' in the
> past and continue to fob us off with restrictions now.
yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
"moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that so it's going
to be fun to watch as Apple takes over the cell market. They are just
ONE download away from releasing a VoIP product (iChat) on all existing
and future iPhones. Yes, steve is waiting for the right moment to kill
off the cell phone industry, we ALL know that... but his extreme
interest in FON spells everything out very clearly.
The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost /
High Quality products... something they've never had to experience. AT&T
is just a pawn at this point in the game.
> Wi-fi could enable us to by-pass the parasites and force them to take
> their rightful position in society as sellers of bandwidth on their
> systems and nothing else.
Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
any value to the market place. Their technology is obsolete... The
public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
> Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
> it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
> celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
Well, it's as about as unlikely as a kid named Steve Wozniak invents a
powerful, extremely low cost computer and creates massive social change
on the order of the Light Bulb.
FON is quite similar if you think about it... a one time $40 cost to
share VoIP to 250 more people that ALSO have massive bandwidth "tied up"
since nobody knows it's possible to break the rules and win.
The FON concept is interesting and something can be done on a mass scale
if / when Apple plays their cards.
-
nospamatall
nospamatall
> In article <fhcj48$cf6$1...@aioe.org>, nospamatall <nospa...@iol.ie>
>
>>> What if I'm away from home (it's a mobile phone, after all) happily
>>> using YOUR "free" open network, when the power goes off at my house.
>>> Suddenly I have no "open network" any longer. Does my iPhone become an
>>> iBrick?
>> If you're really interested why don't you find out instead of displaying
>> your ignorance here?
>
IOW find out for yourself or ask politely not antagonistically
bye
The Ghost of General Lee
wrote:
The only thing patently obvious is your stupidity.
Maverick
> In article
> <colalovesosx-2DC6...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
> Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> wrote:
>
>
>>well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
>>tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
>
>
> Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC
> with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry.
>
In this case Apple had no real choice. IBM didn't want to give them
their flagship chip, the G6. Apples server line was in direct
competition with IBMs server line.
But you are correct in that Apple didn't set any tech trends.
Steve Sobol
On 2007-11-13, Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> wrote:
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
Moore's law concerns computer hardware. You can get the cellular
*hardware* for free or at low cost with a new contract or contract
extension. Then there's the cost of building out and maintaining the
network, billing, customer service, etc. Which is not to say that cell
contracts couldn't be cheaper, but $4 or $5 per month? I doubt it.
> BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
Bahahahaha. That's funny. Do you understand the meaning of the term "price
fixing"?
> The Cell Industry is in for a serious lesson from the King of Low Cost
Bullshit. Apple products have always brought a premium price compared to
the rest of the market, from the first 128K Mac to today's iPhones.
> Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> POOF, (except for extremely remote areas). It's going to happen, it's a
> matter of time, so let's get the ball moving in that direction. There
> should be NO REASON to pay Cell Companies a PENNY since they don't add
> any value to the market place.
If that's the way you feel, don't pay for a cell phone.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
Oxford
> > ah, but for some reason SJ is very interested in what FON is doing.
>
> Gee, he's in buiness that sells computers and music downloads, and wants
> cheap or free ubiquitous intenet access to spread. Hmm, I can't imagine
> why. I hear Jif and Skippy support the development of cars that are
> powered by Peanut Butter...
ah, but he still lives in a modest house in palo alto, doesn't drive
flashy cars or wear fancy clothes. and makes $1 a year so he can get
health insurance for his kids and wife. he's an honest hippy and has
stayed true to that ideal all this time.
> > That
> > speaks volumes alone, and supports my hypothesis in a major way.
> >
> > http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_keen_on_a_world_where_people_share_WiFi
>
> > someday, you'll catch up with me...
>
> "Imagine no possessions/ I wonder if you can/ No need for greed or
> hunger/ A brotherhood of man..."
yes, and steve has stayed true to that vision. especially the
brotherhood of man. he's never been out for just a "buck"... he lives to
build a better world, or as often been said, "put a dent in the
universe".
> The problem with this concept is that it relies on our giving nature. If
> all six of the WiFi houses on my cul-de-sac open our APs, how long before
> five of us decide we don't need to buy access anymore? Socialism has the
> same problem. If society agrees that everyone should share equally, what
> is the producers incentive to produce?
yes, but that's where the "payback" mechanism kicks in. if you are
greedy and don't want to share... you can CHARGE people for your unused
bandwidth. so it's not an either / or proposition... it's if you want to
join great, free wireless for you, if you want to pay... then great, i
make a buck or two on your ignorance.
> FON tries to combat this with it's "members" concept, but it seems to me
> FON is more interested in selling it's $40 routers than actually
> spreading free wi-fi around. So, I could use the $40 to get free WiFi
> from the 9 FON members in the Denver Metro, or use it to buy 7 months of
> net access from my cell provider. Decisions, decisions...
well, if FON makes $10-$15 off me that's fine... it's not like they are
inflating the price to be unreasonable. Or charging me MONTH to MONTH
like the old school Cell or Cable / DSL companies are trying to do.
It's a fair sum game...
-
Todd Allcock
> Of course I realise this is unlikely to happen, and don't evengelise for
> it myself, but I had to reply to the idiot shill who appeared to
> celebrating the current position of the cell carriers. That's all really.
As the "idiot shill" you're referring to, set me straight and tell me how
cell companies are "parasites?" For $0.05-0.10/minute I can take a phone
virtually anywhere in the country and call anyone in the country. Skype
wants $0.02/minute to do that with SOMEONE ELSE'S infrastructure!
Now if you're b*tching about the high internet rates or restrictive TOSes
that's another matter, but the answer there is to shop around. T-Mobile,
my provider, offers unlimited data for $20/month, without a restrictive
TOS, (but slow 2G data.)
As I said earlier, the free market works- if a company could do it better
and cheape , THEY WOULD. Imagine how EASY it would be to steal away the
millions of unsatisfied cellular customers that think just like you, just
like DBS satellite companies did a decade ago and gobbled up unhappy
cable customers.
The fact is, that cellular is a cutthroat low-margin business. Perhaps
you should read a few finacial statements or industry trade papers before
you cry "idiot shill," my naive friend.
Todd Allcock
>
> catch a clue mitch... this is very much a real idea, and 10,000's of
> free spots exist at this very moment...
Wow. 10,000 ultra low range hotspots across the entire planet. We have 9
here in Denver. I'm surprised the Cellcos haven't thrown in the towel
already.
(Oh, Oxford will say, but in the future...) If every WiFi AP in the
country went completely unsecured it still wouldn't offer 1% of the
coverage that cellular offers.
I occasionally use Navizon's WiFi/cellular mapping project software
(www.navizon.com) where people with Wi-Fi and GPS enabled phones (or
laptops) run a software program that automatically logs and uploads the
location of every AP
(secure or unsecure) and cell tower they drive in range of so people with
non-GPS WiFi phones can use that data as a substitute for a satellite-
based GPS.
There are plenty of areas I drive through that are not in range of a
single AP for miles. (In those areas it uses cell towers to roughly
approximate location, but it's nowhere near as accurate as WiFi
triangulation because of the fewer data points.)
They've even built a version of their software for hacked iPhones, but
unlike other versions for other phones, it can't pass the location data
to Google Maps, unfortunately, but you can use their (clunkier)
map/directions software to simulate a "real" nav program on the iPhone.
Once you setup an account, you can go to their website and select an area
and see a Google Earth map showing every AP and cell tower any user has
ever logged using Navizon.
What's my point? Simply this: select any well trafficed suburban area
that has Navizon data recorded, and you'll EASILY see the holes in
coverage. As a fun "Oxford-bashing bonus", compare the vast number of
RED pushpins (secured APs) to green (unsecured) and see all the "free
wifi" he tells us is already out there.
DTC
> yes, and the root of my angst against the cell world fully falls onto
> the cartel that is called the US Cell System. prices should have dropped
> to $4 or $5 a month for unlimited minutes to ANY cell phone... if they
> followed the rules of a normally functioning market, or similar to
> "moore's law" which governs the computer industry.
Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
lower in cellular rates than you see now.
> Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
> Their technology is obsolete... The
> public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.
Kurt
DTC <m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
Cell phones are now primarily funded by teens text messaging.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Oxford
> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go much
> lower in cellular rates than you see now.
but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is skimming
off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per month
are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and shows how
uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy market, no
company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.
They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.
> > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry goes
> > POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
upgrading the towers.
> > Their technology is obsolete... The
> > public just hasn't risen up and realized it yet.
>
> No, its YOU that haven't realized more than a few things.
No, I'm very good with numbers and spotting faults within a market. The
Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
"major" expense after the towers are up.
The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
well run market.
Oxford
> > BUT... for SOME unexplained reason, "the cartel" is "price fixing"...
> > keeping prices extremely HIGH. Apple will not allow that
>
> Yeah. Apple is known for their low prices, aren't they!
Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor. They charge a fair
price, then you use the product for 2-4 years and resell it for a
massive sum comparatively to PCs.
So if you understand the concept of "Value", Macs are the cheapest PCs
you can buy today.
Real Macs go for 30-40% more upon resell compared to Mac Clones.
Learn how markets work Bob, then you won't ask such silly questions.
CozmicDebris
news:colalovesosx-706B...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> DTC <m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know how
>> prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't seem to
>> grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You can't go
>> much lower in cellular rates than you see now.
>
> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
> skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
> companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
> rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
> shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
> market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
> front.
>
Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
Damn, you're stupid.
Ness Net
"Oxford" <colalo...@supersmart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesosx-2483...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> for what? there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
Holy shit - you REALLY are THAT stupid!
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/popUp_3g.html
Alabama Birmingham Arkansas Fayetteville, Little Rock Arizona Chandler,
Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Tucson
California Anaheim, Arden-Arcade, Bakersfield, Berkeley, Burbank, Chula
Vista, Concord, Daly City, East Los Angeles, Escondido, Fairfield, Fremont,
Fresno, Glendale, Hayward, Irvine, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Modesto,
Norwalk, Oakland, Oceanside, Ontario, Oxnard, Pasadena, Pomona, Richmond,
Roseville, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Ana, Santa
Clara, Stockton, Sunnyvale, Vallejo Colorado Colorado Springs, Denver
Connecticut Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, New London Delaware Wilmington
District of Columbia Washington, DC Florida Cape Canaveral, Clearwater,
Coral Springs, Daytona Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Gainesville,
Hialeah, Hollywood, Jacksonville, Lakeland, Miami, Miramar, Orlando,
Pembroke Pines, St. Petersburg, Tallahassee, Tampa, The Keys, West Palm
Beach Georgia Athens, Atlanta Hawaii Honolulu Idaho Boise Illinois
Bloomington, Chicago, Elgin, Joliet, Springfield Indiana Gary, Indianapolis
Kansas Kansas City, Olathe, Overland Park Kentucky Lexington, Louisville
Louisiana Baton Rouge, Metairie, New Orleans Maryland Baltimore
Massachusetts Boston, Cambridge, Lowell, Springfield, Worcester Michigan
Clinton, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Livonia, Sterling Heights, Warren
Minnesota Minneapolis, Rochester Missouri Columbia, Independence, Jefferson
City, Kansas City, St. Louis Nevada Carson City, Henderson, Las Vegas, North
Las Vegas, Paradise, Reno, Spring Valley, Sunrise Manor New Jersey Atlantic
City, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Long Branch, Newark, New Brunswick, Ocean
County, Trenton New Mexico Albuquerque New York Hamptons, New York North
Carolina Cary, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Raleigh, Winston-Salem Ohio
Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo Oklahoma Tulsa Oregon
Portland Pennsylvania Allentown, Harrisburg, Northeast-Scranton,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh Puerto Rico Bayamon, Carolina, San Juan Rhode
Island Providence South Carloina Columbia Tennessee Knoxville, Memphis,
Nashville Texas Arlington, Austin, Beaumont, Carrollton, Corpus Christi,
Dallas, Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Houston, Irving, McAllen,
Mesquite, Pasadena, Plano, Richardson, San Antonio, Victoria Utah Provo,
Salt Lake City, West Valley Virginia Alexandria, Arlington Washington
Bellevue, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver Wisconsin Milwaukee
Then , remember EVDO is also 3G - even though it's CDMA and not totally
germane to the issue..
But, you claim "there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to
think about it.
3G is only in about 35 cities"
Since EVDO on both VZW and Sprint is nationwide, this further proves just
how out of
touch with reality you are.
Oxford = 100% bullshit - always.
Jon
see how much faster EVDO (which is 3G) is than ATT's 2G network (which
is HSPCD or something like that).
And no Oxtard, wifi would not be a viable option if you are in a moving
vehicle.
Jon
> In article <fhdo5j$8dg$2...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Jon <J...@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>>> Oxford = 100% bullshit - always.
>> True that. If you look at the speed comparison on wikipedia, you can
>> see how much faster EVDO (which is 3G) is than ATT's 2G network (which
>> is HSPCD or something like that).
>>
>> And no Oxtard, wifi would not be a viable option if you are in a moving
>> vehicle.
>
> parked in a residential area AND everyone had their APs opened as per
> Oxtard's wet dream AND the owners of said APs weren't currently using
> the bandwidth they are paying for by actually USING their bandwidth for
> their own use.
>
> Bob Campbell
What Oxtard fails to realize is that people are smarter than him and
know not to do that. (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
bandwidth, ect)
Ness Net
> DTC <m...@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
> Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
> upgrading the towers.
>
> Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to normal
> market behavior. It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
> will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
> like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
> the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
>
> The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
> "major" expense after the towers are up.
>
> The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
> well run market.
The idiot Oxford is totally out of touch with reality. The MINIMUM
connection
to a site is a T1. Many use a DS3 or bigger. Have any idea what that costs?
Now, multiply by the hundreds of sites in an MSA. Then the metro fiber rings
to tie it all together. Have any idea what an OC3 or bigger costs?
I do....
This is just the network to connect to the switches. Then, there are leases
that can run
many thousands a month. Then there is the electricity. Then, there is the
connections to
the POTS. Then there is the many millions for the switches.... and on and
on....
The above is just to maintain an existing network and existing sites.
A new site nowadays costs a mil or more to build. Most all systems add some
every year.
Some, quite a few.
Now, just how ludicrous is "$5, $6 range a month for unlimited access"....
EVERY post of yours shows your complete lack of any actual knowledge.
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> typed:
> Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
>> Looks to be a system where you either BUY access to the network, via a
>> pass, or you SHARE your own network in order to generate shared access
>
> no, all you do is buy a router with a range extender for $40, then you
> get FREE access to all other people doing the same. It's a one time cost.
>
>> Nothing *free* there at all. You have to buy access directly from them,
>> or you have to pay for access at home that you can share.
>
> no, you aren't understanding the concept. it's FREE to use any of the
> others if you have a fon router yourself. so for $40 bucks "one time",
> you have access to all other fon routers worldwide.
>
> it's the shape of things to come, especially if Apple does it on a much
> larger scale.
>
> -
If you have a fon router yourself, then it's FREE to use any of the others.
But you have to pay some ISP to have your router connected to the internet
and provide service to others doing the same.
So everyone is paying the overpriced internet providers of access while
sharing that connection via WiFi.
Jon
> In article <fhdopj$ch5$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Jon <J...@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> What Oxtard fails to realize is that people are smarter than him
>
>
>> and
>> know not to do that. (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
>> sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
>> bandwidth, ect)
>
> turned off. No amount of Oxtard babbling is going to make me open it
> up.
>
> Bob Campbell
Now he is going to whine and complain that you won't let him leech your
wifi (which is illegal if he leeches wifi without the wifi owner's consent)
Todd Allcock
> Since you know all about the cell phone industry, you should know
> how prices have dropped over the last twenty years. But you don't
> seem to grasp the concept that cell sites cost money to run. You
> can't go much lower in cellular rates than you see now.
Agreed. I will add the caviat, however, that cellphone companies have
lowered per-minute rates so much, that they've compensated by abolishing
their cheaper entry level plans, in order to keep ARPU up. Most
carriers START plans at $39 these days whereas a few years ago, $19
and/or $29 plans were readily available (but at a much higher per-minute
cost.)
Now, having said that, it really isn't a problem, since increased
competition in the prepaid arena has compensated for this. Losing access
to a 60 or 100 minutes for $19.99 plan isn't really a hardship when you
can get a $0.10/minute prepaid plan and pay $6-10 for those same minutes.
> > Yes, and if we all band together our "bandwidth", the cell industry
> > goes POOF, (except for extremely remote areas).
>
> And "extremely remote areas" covers an extremely large area.
Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks, and,
particularly in light of Oxford's continual regurgitation of the Gospel
According to Steve WRT 3G power consumption, WiFi eats batteries like
Homer Simspon goes through donuts. A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets (cellular
or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
hours on a single charge.
Todd Allcock
> but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user.
I guess that depends on the level of service you want. A 1000 minute
plan with T-Mobile with unlimited EDGE data can be as low as $46. A 450-
minute iPhone plan with unlimited EDGE is $59. Heavy users get charged
more to ensure bandwidth isn't oversold, just like a broadband ISP
charges more for higher speeds. Both are methods of bandwidth allocation
based on retail price.
> So someone is skimming
> off the top.
I'll bet their margins are lower than Apple's!
> I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone companies, I
> also see Cell companies in new retail developments where rents per
month
> are $2,400-8,000 a month.
And what does your Apple store pay for rent? What percentage of the new
Nano's price covers the incessant "1, 2, 3, 4" ads I have to endure? Why
after a boatload of free media hype and $200 in price drops do I have to
watch a bunch of lame actors show me they've just used their new iPhone
to do the same stuff I've done on phones for years? (A pilot checks the
weather! A couple accesses a wedding registry website! What did we all
do before the iPhone? Oh, that's right- we used all our other phones!)
> That is just plain WRONG and shows how
> uncompetitive the cell industry has become.
Um, just the opposite. In a competitive market advertising is perfectly
normal, AND cost effective, since it increases sales and profits in
excess of the advertising cost. Jiminy Christmas, Oxy, this is marketing
101 stuff.
> In a healthy market, no
> company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store front.
"1, 2, 3, 4, why then all the Apple stores?/ 5, 6, 7, 8, why advertise
products so great?"
> They can only sell at the market price, thus the Cell Industry is full
> of fat and inefficiency and I'm determined to set them right.
So I see pricing strategy and marketing get added to the things you
have no real understanding of.
> Yes, and those people would pay $5, $6 more a month for maintaining,
> upgrading the towers.
Nature abhors a vaccum, my dear Oxford. If cell carriers could offer
lower price
points profitably, they would, because it would increase market share and
cripple less efficient competitors. Look at Metro PCS and Leap- they
offer unlimited plans at the $50 or lower price point. They do this by
offering service with poor coverage (compared to the national carriers.)
Fewer towers, less capacity, lower costs equal lower prices. See the
pattern?
In fact, the marketing strategy of cell operators today is "kill 'em with
add-ons." Competition in voice plans is so fierce and so low margin,
texting, data, ringtones, etc. are used to increase, or even to attain,
profits.
> No, I'm very good with numbers
The same guy who confused $0.04 and 0.04 cents? Who believed 1 out of
every 100 people in the UK bought an iPhone in three days? You're good
with numbers, alright- give or take a few zeros in either direction...
> and spotting faults within a market. The
> Cell industry in the US is extremely out of balance in regards to
> normal market behavior.
It's actually quite typical of an infrastructure-intensive service market-
where the cost of infrastructure is high compared to other costs and has
to be spread out among all users, regardless of their usage. The
carrier's actual "per minute" cost isn't fixed, like the price of a can
of soda at a grocery store is. Infrastructure will cost $x
regardless if it's used to 1/8th capacity or 7/8ths.
Usage is controlled by charging more for higher usage, to prevent the
capacity issues the flat-rate carriers like Leap or Metro face.
> It's borderline criminal, but thankfully the Internet
> will bring them back into balance within the next decade since people
> like me are onto their scam and will not quite until Cell fees are in
> the $5, $6 range a month for unlimited access to any other cell phone.
I'll grant you that's an interesting concept, but probably unworkable
from a practical perspective- for starters, you'd have to get various
competitors to agree. Even VoIP has very little inter-company
cooperation- Skype users can't call MagicJack, Vonage or Packet8 users
for free, so why would, say, Verizon agree to let AT&T customers access
their network free of interconnect charges?
Besides, most monthly cell plans include free in-network calling, plus
many cell companies already offer low-cost prepaid plans with free in-
network calling. Verizon and AT&T offer unlimited in-net calling for
$1/day, charged only on the days you actually use the phone.
Your "$5-6" number is way too low, BTW- a few years ago Sprint estimated
their
per-customer infrastructure costs- just customer service, billing and
network, ran around $18. This led to the decision to eliminate a tier or
two of low-usage plans, which at the time started at $15, and migrate
them to prepaid which eliminates billing and some customer service costs.
Again, you're trying to compare VoIP- a parasitic service that gets a
free ride on the network of an ISP, to a wireless service who brings
their own to the table. They aren't directly comparable.
> The cell industry is just a bunch of walkie talkies, there is really no
> "major" expense after the towers are up.
Wow. It's always hard to figure out if you're yanking our chains, or
just that mind-bogglingly naive. What about maintenance, expansion,
upgrades to capacity and bandwidth, handset subsidies, customer service
expenses? What about interconnect charges to the PSTN- their largest
telecommuncation expense next to infrastructure.
> The rest is advertising and employee expense, which aren't needed in a
> well run market.
"1, 2, 3, 4, explain Apple's ads a little more/ 5, 6, 7, 8, I suspect
you'll make me wait..."
Cellular is a very customer service intesive business. Customers want
questions answered by real people, and want to touch and play with
product before they buy. Both require employed bodies.
As to advertising, you already know that answer- that Feist tune plays in
your head as you dream about what Steve Jobs' warm embrace would feel
like...
Oxford
> > but they don't cost nearly $80+ a month per user. So someone is
> > skimming off the top. I see commercials all the time for Cell Phone
> > companies, I also see Cell companies in new retail developments where
> > rents per month are $2,400-8,000 a month. That is just plain WRONG and
> > shows how uncompetitive the cell industry has become. In a healthy
> > market, no company can afford advertising and wouldn't have a store
> > front.
>
> Then there would be no Apple stores, correct? No iPhone advertising?
yes, and I fully agree.
but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
90,000 or more. Why?
That is the question...
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> typed:
Perhaps they sell that much more. lol
Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the most
dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The Cube
was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for a
history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
Oxford
> (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
> sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
> bandwidth, ect)
who really cares about an unsecured basestation if you have a Mac. you
are using windows so have false sense about security. Get a Mac and you
don't have to deal with security issues.
my current basestation is called iPhone.
people connect to it all the time for free. as it should be.
-
Oxford
> > and
> > know not to do that. (that being unsecured APs, not noticing someone
> > sitting in a car in front of their house surfing the net, leeching
> > bandwidth, ect)
>
> Yep. Mine is secured by MAC address, encryption and the SSID beacon is
> turned off. No amount of Oxtard babbling is going to make me open it
> up.
yes, if you are mentally retarded or need to be on medication, you would
do what you have done. but the spirit of apple is to share info for free
so you are basically a leach on the apple way of doing things.
you are simply selfish, that is clear.
-
CozmicDebris
They do more business. I would have thought that to be obvious. But of
course you are never acquainted with the obvious.
>
> That is the question...
No- the question is how can somebody as clueless as you actually survive?
IMHO IIRC
Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> typed:
You have a wireless router hooked to your iPhone providing free WiFi with
out a computer? lol
CozmicDebris
news:colalovesosx-26B7...@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
Oh...please stop....oh...I can't breath....I've haven't laughed like that
in years.
Apple has never shared anything for free and is the most proprietary and
closed technology company on the planet, which is why children like you
praise them so highly- they have made it impossible for you to develop free
thinking
> you are simply selfish, that is clear.
>
> -
>
And you are an idiot. Bob can easily become more giving if he chooses, but
you are sentenced to a lifetime of stupidity.
Oxford
> > at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
> > thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
> > a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
>
> That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
90% of the world's cell phone do not have 3G. And yes, the ones that do
maybe using them happily but Apple goes for the level of "delight"...
something 3G can't offer customers as of yet.
> > > > It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
> > >
> > > So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> > > when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
> >
> > for what?
>
> For your iPhone, with its non-user-replaceable battery.
ah, the iPhone has a fully user replaceable battery, and it's only $20
in the 3-4 year time frame.
> > there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> > about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> > so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
>
> Never mind. When the US moves up to 3G you'll see what I mean.
probably will never happen on a large scale, the US is too huge to make
slow, 3G feasible.
> Until then, happy leeching, assuming you find an open wifi...
anywhere you go in my city you can just pull over and find an open
network. the iphone pulls it up automatically. nice!
> And while you're leeching, just remember if someone uses that connection
> for kiddie porn the cops will come calling, and you'll have to persuade
> them it wasn't you.
what? that makes no sense. a cop wouldn't come to my city in the first
place, much less for something like porn.
> Not worth the hassle, IMO.
because you live in the restrictive UK, in the US we don't care about
rules.
-
Peter Hayes
> noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > at the expense of a bulkier device and about half the talk time. no
> > > thanks, i'll wait until the 3G chipset becomes usable. 802.11g is quite
> > > a bit faster anyway, so really no need for 3G best I can tell.
> >
> > That'll be why the rest of the world uses 3G quite happily...
>
> 90% of the world's cell phone do not have 3G. And yes, the ones that do
> maybe using them happily but Apple goes for the level of "delight"...
> something 3G can't offer customers as of yet.
There's not much "delight" in seeking out a free wifi connection as a
substitute for slow 2G.
> > > > > It kills battery life and makes them too bulky.
> > > >
> > > > So buy a battery extender for a few bucks. You'll need one anyway for
> > > > when your non-user-replaceable battery goes flat.
> > >
> > > for what?
> >
> > For your iPhone, with its non-user-replaceable battery.
>
> ah, the iPhone has a fully user replaceable battery, and it's only $20
> in the 3-4 year time frame.
>
> http://snipurl.com/1tlyz
It's "fully user replaceable" in the sense that the engine in my car is
"fully user replaceable", but I'm not likely to be doing it at the
roadside should something break.
I can just see people disassembling their iPhones in Starbucks to swap
batteries. Bang goes their street cred.
Oh, and it voids your warranty.
> > > there is no 3G coverage in my area, or my state come to think
> > > about it. 3G is only in about 35 cities. the value equation with 802.11
> > > so prevalent doesn't make a lot of sense.
> >
> > Never mind. When the US moves up to 3G you'll see what I mean.
>
> probably will never happen on a large scale, the US is too huge to make
> slow, 3G feasible.
>
> > Until then, happy leeching, assuming you find an open wifi...
>
> anywhere you go in my city you can just pull over and find an open
> network. the iphone pulls it up automatically. nice!
The UK is obviously ahead of the US, since very few aps are open, people
here have more sense.
> > And while you're leeching, just remember if someone uses that connection
> > for kiddie porn the cops will come calling, and you'll have to persuade
> > them it wasn't you.
>
> what? that makes no sense. a cop wouldn't come to my city in the first
> place, much less for something like porn.
You ran the Marshal out of town? This is the 21st century, not the Wild
West.
Never mind, just carry on living in your ivory tower (your mother's
basement) and when the cops come calling to find the kiddie porn someone
d/l on your wifi they'll take away all your computer kit, iPhone(s) etc
for six months forensic examination. That'll give us all peace...
> > Not worth the hassle, IMO.
>
> because you live in the restrictive UK, in the US we don't care about
> rules.
George Walter Bush is the prime example of that.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Peter Hayes
>
> George Walter Bush is the prime example of that.
Woops... George Walker Bush is the prime example of that.
Todd Allcock
> but Apple only maintains 200 stores WORLD wide, the cell industry has
> 90,000 or more. Why?
>
> That is the question...
Different distribution methodsfor different companies. Nokia operates 3
stores in the US- big, upscale "boutiques" designed to raise brand
awareness, rather than to actually make a profit- basically they're a
brick and mortar version of advertising.
Cellular carriers, on the other hand, sell convenience- a large number of
relatively cheap stores are designed to offer convenient points of
contact for customer service and sales.
Rick
That explains the John Doe searches and the web take down orders, doesn't
it?
--
Rick
Kurt
"IMHO IIRC" <NOS...@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
Actually, it opened May of last year.
FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
it out of his own pocket? True story.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
Oxford
> > Did you see this: The Fifth Avenue Apple store just opened and was the
> > most
> > dramatic, exciting and star-studded store event in Apple's history. The
> > Cube
> > was conceived to be the perfect entrance, the spiral glass stairs make for
> > a
> > history-raising grand entrance, and the store space itself is breathtaking.
> >
> > http://ifostore.ord.cachefly.net/fifth_avenue/index.html
>
> Actually, it opened May of last year.
> FYI- Did you know that the cube entrance was so expensive, Jobs paid for
> it out of his own pocket? True story.
yes, and part of the stipulation is he gets to keep it if he ever leaves
apple. kinda funny.
Oxford
> > well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
> > tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
>
> Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC
> with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry.
ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976,
set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983,
set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987,
set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989,
set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then
set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year,
set the wireless trend in 2000, set the firewire trend that same year,
set the iPod trend in 2001, set the bluetooth trend in 2003, set the dvd
burning trend in 2004, set the wireless audio trend in 2005, on and on...
this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994:
"It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the computer
industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up with Apple."
what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't
name a single thing.
-
Scott
news:colalovesosx-62E5...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:
>
> this says it all - BYTE Magazine, December 1994:
>
> "It would not be an exaggeration to describe the history of the
> computer industry for the past decade as a massive attempt to keep up
> with Apple."
>
A thirteen year old article? A snippet from a thirteen year old article?
Too bad the same hasn't true for the last thirteen years.
Mark Crispin
> Oxford <colalo...@supersmart.com> wrote:
>> set the ethernet trend since 1989,
It would be hard for Apple to "set the Ethernet trend" in 1989.
Xerox invented Ethernet in the 1970s. I wrote the Stanford AI Lab's
Ethernet kernel in August 1980 (a quick Google search turned up a copy of
that code!). SUN was founded in 1982, but the Stanford project that
became SUN was before that. cisco was well underway by 1984.
>> set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that)
> Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it.
Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or
NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it".
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Nobody you want to meet....
take the discussioin somewhere else.
CozmicDebris
news:B7CdnQoWtohcBKba...@comcast.com:
> <snip>
> take the discussioin somewhere else.
>
>
>
Learn how to filter.
Nobody you want to meet....
"CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> wrote in message
news:Xns99E8B81F7D...@216.196.97.142...
Scott
> Learn how to read the name of the group :)
>
\
What makes you think I can't?
Oh, I get it- you just learned how and don't think anybody else can do it.
Nobody you want to meet....
post was being cross referenced, and this post is just bulls*** talking
about some damn thing that doesnt make no sense! I've come to conclusion
that people are an idiot and they say stupid things, just to get their
attention, hence this guy named Oxford. he annoys everyone on purpose
because he get kick out of this, knowing that everyone will response to his
comments.
"Scott" <how...@you.do> wrote in message
news:NZWdnZxvvfDeIaba...@adelphia.com...
The Ghost of General Lee
<silk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't know.. because if you can read.. then one would assume that this
>post was being cross referenced
You know, there's a way to fix that.
Nobody you want to meet....
guess " filter it?"
"The Ghost of General Lee" <gh...@general.lee> wrote in message
news:vmgnj35u3d269ojod...@4ax.com...
Maverick
Nothing more than editorial opinion.
Oxford
> Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
> than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks,
the iPhone auto connects, so it's not a problem. Sounds like you use
windows. On a mac or iphone you either auto connect or select the
network without a lock with your mouse or finger. one click or one touch
is the most you have to do on apple products to join a wifi network.
then it remembers it forever from there on out.
> and,
> particularly in light of Oxford's continual regurgitation of the Gospel
> According to Steve WRT 3G power consumption, WiFi eats batteries like
> Homer Simspon goes through donuts. A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
> between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets (cellular
> or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
> hours on a single charge.
incorrect. wifi on the iphone barely touches the battery, you can go a
full week with wifi on the entire time, you obviously haven't used an
iphone... and uses wifi for it's main data connection type.
-
Oxford
Bob Campbell <b...@bob.bob> wrote:
> > > > well, apple sets most all tech trends. mainly because they wait until a
> > > > tech is ready, then develop it out, then everyone follows apple's lead.
> > >
> > > Apple doesn't set ANY tech trends - they follow. They followed the PC
> > > with Intel chips. They are following the cell phone industry.
> >
> > ah, they set the PC as the trend people have been following since 1976,
>
> Nope. PCs existed before 1976.
>
> > set the floppy drive trend in 1977, they set the GUI trend since 1983,
>
> Nope. Floppies existed before Apple. Xerox set the GUI trend.
>
> > set the laser printer trend since 1985, set the CD-Rom trend since 1987,
>
> Nope. Xerox again.
>
> > set the multimedia trend since 1988, set the ethernet trend since 1989,
>
> The multimedia trend was started by the Amiga in 1985. Hard for Apple
> to "set" it 3 years later! Ethernet again was a Xerox thing.
>
> > set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that), then a dark 8 years. then
>
> Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it.
>
> > set the USB trend in 1998, set getting rid of floppies that same year,
>
> USB was a common standard, led by Intel and MS among others. Apple
> wasn't even a part of it's creation.
>
> The only one you got right was the iPod.
>
> > what has the PC contributed, that Apple didn't do first? bet you can't
> > name a single thing.
>
> Used faster Intel chips and motherboards - Apple followed.
>
> Set the lower pricing trend - Apple has yet to follow.
>
> Set the CD burning trend - Apple completely missed the boat on that one.
> Remember the original iMacs with NO REMOVABLE STORAGE AT ALL? Apple
> (reluctantly) followed.
>
> Set the business computer use trend. Apple has yet to follow.
>
> Set the server trend. Apple has yet to follow.
>
> Bob Campbell
poor bob, clearly doesn't know his computing history!
wrong on all counts except one.
grade F
step it up a notch Bob, or risk being plonked
-
Oxford
> >> set the ethernet trend since 1989,
> > Ethernet again was a Xerox thing.
>
> It would be hard for Apple to "set the Ethernet trend" in 1989.
Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD
starting in 1984 with the Mac. Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they
were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all
their machines. They first used the AAUI connector which allowed...
coaxial or twisted-pair ethernet on the same machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interface
Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on
all their machines. Apple has always been ahead of the PC market with
networking, probably since they control the OS and the Hardware, MS
never had that kind of power in the market.
> Xerox invented Ethernet in the 1970s. I wrote the Stanford AI Lab's
> Ethernet kernel in August 1980 (a quick Google search turned up a copy of
> that code!). SUN was founded in 1982, but the Stanford project that
> became SUN was before that. cisco was well underway by 1984.
Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to
have ethernet as standard long before PCs did.
Steve Jobs is on my eternal heroes list, there's nothing he can ever do
to get off it - Bob Metcalfe
http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part3.html
> >> set the www trend since 1990 (sj did that)
> > Nope. SJ had nothing to do with it.
>
> Apparently, Oxtard thinks that anything that someone did using an Apple or
> NeXT machine qualifies as "SJ doing it".
Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the
early games like Breakout, the first PC of course, WWW (NeXT) and
Animation Industries (Pixar). Pretty much everything technical you use
today traces back to him making it possible on a mass scale.
Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never
be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years Mark, I know you
are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are
learning. Good to see it!
-
Oxford
> > Macs are priced the same as any major PC vendor.
>
> No, they are not. Where is the $700 mac laptop? Where is the $500
> Mac tower?
those aren't categories that Apple has products in, sorry Bob.
please stay on track, thanks.
Todd Allcock
> > Not to mention the simple convenience of a consistant carrier, rather
> > than constantly reconnecting to disparate WiFi networks,
>
> the iPhone auto connects, so it's not a problem. Sounds like you use
> windows. On a mac or iphone you either auto connect or select the
> network without a lock with your mouse or finger.
All modern wifi devices autoconnect. Which is fine for webrowsing, e-
mail or file transfers- the systems pauses a few seconds and reconnects-
no big deal. But as you well know, that's curtains for VoIP- the call
terminates everytime you change APs.
> the one click or one touch
> is the most you have to do on apple products to join a wifi network.
And then redial. Great cellular replacement you've discovered there,
Skippy.
> then it reme.bers it forever from there on out.
Just like a Windows machine, a Wi-Fi phone or any other Wi-fi device. We
all know how Wi-Fi works, Oxy. (BTW, if your Mac is so advanced, why do
you need to use Coconut WiFi? Doesn't your Mac automatically tell you if
a wireless network is available and if it's secure or open? Sounds like
you need to install Windows on your Macbook! ;-)
> > A standard "dumbphone" can go a week
> > between recharges with casual use. Most WiFi-enabled handsets
(cellular
> > or cordless "Skypephones") can't make it through a single day's waking
> > hours on a single charge.
>
> incorrect. wifi on the iphone barely touches the battery, you can go a
> full week with wifi on the entire time, you obviously haven't used an
> iphone...
Certainly not for a week, I haven't. And if you think it can stay
powered up with WiFi on for 7 days, I'm not so sure you've actually used
one either.
The kind folks at wirelessinfo.com have, however, and while they
certainly praised the iPhone for it's long battery life, they tested it
at about 6-1/2 hours of web-browsing with wi-fi on before the battery
crapped out, which equalled or exceeded most other smartphones they tested,
but it by no means lasted "a week" when on and connected to a network in
their tests.
Mark Crispin
> Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD
> starting in 1984 with the Mac.
Oxtard obviously never heard of SUN. Or Digital.
It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its
inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that
Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing.
> Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they
> were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all
> their machines.
Even if that was the case, Jobs wasn't at Apple in 1989 or 1991.
Macintosh didn't get Ethernet until Sculley kicked Jobs out. I remember
the first Mac II (68020 based, ugh) that had an optional Ethernet board.
Its date of introduction wasn't any of the dates (1984, 1989, 1991) that
Oxtard offers. Since Oxtard probably wasn't even born then, he wouldn't
know.
Apple was still selling machines without included Ethernet into the mid
1990s. None of the early PowerBooks had standard Ethernet, nor did the
68K-based Macs.
IIRC, standard Ethernet started appearing with the PPC-based Macs, which
was much later than 1991.
You would have made a better argument with NeXT in late 1988. NeXT made a
cheap SUN 2 clone, and sold machines to workstation buyers for whom a SUN
2 clone was good enough. The problem was, NeXT destroyed itself with the
false assumption that its market was fanboys rather than workstation
buyers. I watched the train wreck as it happened. It was well underway
in early 1989. Not even the 1991 pizza box could save NeXT.
SJ did not repeat those mistakes when he was back at the helm of Apple.
He still performs to the fanboys, but he is careful not to annoy customers
who actually buy the product.
> Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on
> all their machines.
Now he qualifies it by saying "PC company", evidentally to exclude
workstations which had such things for many years.
> Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to
> have ethernet as standard long before PCs did.
There's no evidence that Metcalfe is "a deep friend of SJ", but rather
that he admires SJ's deployment of technology to the general public.
Metcalfe was building and selling Ethernet cards for PCs (and other
machines) long before the first Mac Ethernet existed. 3COM was founded
back in 1979. He would certainly not have blocked shipments so that Mac
could have it first (and you still haven't gotten the year right when Mac
first got Ethernet).
> Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the
> early games like Breakout,
Breakout was created by Nolan Bushnell at Atari in 1976. Apple was just
getting started at the time.
> the first PC of course,
People were doing personal computers years earlier. If you want to say
"the first mass-market personal computer", you might have an argument.
But that was just an example of being in the right place at the right
time. With all the people working on PCs, someone was going to have a
hit.
It was by no means certain that Apple was going to win either. Atari and
(especially) Commodore were strong competition. Atari train-wrecked for
much the same reason that NeXT later did. They were a game company at
heart, and falsely assumed that their PC market was in game-playing rather
than software development and computing. The people who stayed true to
the Atari computer vision ended up in Amiga (Commodore and Atari traded
their clueful people, but neither ended up well), and apparently there is
still some little bit of life left in Amiga.
> WWW (NeXT)
So SJ gets to take credit for the work of others just because it was done
on machines that SJ sold? Tim Berners-Lee invented WWW at CERN in
Switzerland. Yes, he used a NeXT cube, and NEXTSTEP's Text class had an
influence on early HTML, but that was it.
SJ had nothing to deal with the creation of WWW, and totally ignored it
for many years.
> and
> Animation Industries (Pixar).
SJ didn't create Pixar. George Lucas did. Lucas sold Pixar to SJ for a
song ($5 million) when he lost interest in building technology tools (and
was getting divorced). Pixar subsequently muddled about for the next few
years, and almost died in 1991.
Fortunately for Pixar, SJ started paying attention to it about that time
as it became clear that NeXT was faltering. He laid off most of its
employees, axed its unsuccessful computer line, and most importantly won a
contract with Disney for Toy Story.
All of these were management/marketing measures, and they were successful.
But that has nothing to do with technical innovations.
> Pretty much everything technical you use
> today traces back to him making it possible on a mass scale.
Nonsense. SJ is a marketeer and manager, and he has been very lucky to be
at the right place at the right time.
However, he is not a technician. I doubt very much that he has ever
designed a circuit or written a non-trivial program. That isn't his skill
set.
> Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never
> be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years
I know that you will eat your iPhone in a few years.
> Mark, I know you
> are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are
> learning. Good to see it!
Of all the absurd statements that you have made, calling me a "newbie when
it comes to high end technology" is rather high at the list.
Speaking of "high end technology", are your mommy and daddy going to get
you a new Mac for Christmas? It must be pretty embarassing for a fanboy
like you to be stuck with an old PPC.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Rick
Maybe can enlighten us all on his "wrong answers"
>
> step it up a notch Bob, or risk being plonked
>
yeah... that's scary.
--
Rick
Oxford
> > Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD
> > starting in 1984 with the Mac.
>
> Oxtard obviously never heard of SUN. Or Digital.
But neither of those are PC Companies. Mark, trust me, I'll make you
look like a fool every time. You just don't know your stuff, it's very
clear by now.
> It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its
> inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that
> Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing.
Ah, AppleTalk could support 4096 nodes at the time, the most of any low
cost network BY FAR, I guess you weren't around for the Star Controller,
it was a breakthrough in making company wide networks for 1/40th the
price of TokenRing, Ethernet.
Mark you are SUCH AN IDIOT!
AppleTalk was ENTIRELY designed to do file sharing from the START. Yes,
it did printer sharing but people were sharing Hard Drives way back in
1985 with TOPS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Goldhaber
It's like you have NO CLUE to the history of PC networking!
> > Then in 1991, (correction from 89) they
> > were first to bring down the cost and make Ethernet STANDARD in all
> > their machines.
>
> Even if that was the case, Jobs wasn't at Apple in 1989 or 1991.
> Macintosh didn't get Ethernet until Sculley kicked Jobs out. I remember
> the first Mac II (68020 based, ugh) that had an optional Ethernet board.
> Its date of introduction wasn't any of the dates (1984, 1989, 1991) that
> Oxtard offers. Since Oxtard probably wasn't even born then, he wouldn't
> know.
Okay, I will give you a pass on that one. It was 1991 before all Macs
had ethernet, but they were the first company to make it standard. Many
companies were still attempting to use ethernet CARDS at the time, how
absurd. Having it built into every machine made far more sense.
> Apple was still selling machines without included Ethernet into the mid
> 1990s. None of the early PowerBooks had standard Ethernet, nor did the
> 68K-based Macs.
But it was always an option, something PC vendors never had until around
1995.
> IIRC, standard Ethernet started appearing with the PPC-based Macs, which
> was much later than 1991.
>
> You would have made a better argument with NeXT in late 1988. NeXT made a
> cheap SUN 2 clone, and sold machines to workstation buyers for whom a SUN
> 2 clone was good enough. The problem was, NeXT destroyed itself with the
> false assumption that its market was fanboys rather than workstation
> buyers. I watched the train wreck as it happened. It was well underway
> in early 1989. Not even the 1991 pizza box could save NeXT.
NeXT hardware failed because it was too far ahead of the market and they
focused on Higher Education, which didn't have enough money for advanced
equipment like NeXT was offering. Tim/CERN changed their fortunes of
course and made them the playboy of the Web, and investment bankers, but
NeXT ended up only creating the WWW which by all accounts is probably
the biggest contribution any firm has made to computing in the last 100
years.
> SJ did not repeat those mistakes when he was back at the helm of Apple.
> He still performs to the fanboys, but he is careful not to annoy customers
> who actually buy the product.
yes, Steve has grown up, keeps quiet most of the time, he appeals to
both serious types and the engine of the pc industry which you call
fanboys.
> > Later, they were the first PC company to make RJ45/ethernet STANDARD on
> > all their machines.
>
> Now he qualifies it by saying "PC company", evidentially to exclude
> workstations which had such things for many years.
Well, sure, in a MacAdvocacy group... 10K-60K workstation systems never
have qualified as PCs. Bob Campbell makes the same mistake. We are
talking MASS SCALE devices sold in huge volumes, not 10 or 20 lab
machines that will have no impact on society.
> > Yes, and Bob Metcalfe is a deep friend of SJ, thus this allowed Macs to
> > have ethernet as standard long before PCs did.
>
> There's no evidence that Metcalfe is "a deep friend of SJ", but rather
> that he admires SJ's deployment of technology to the general public.
Wow, you are clueless, just as I thought.
> Metcalfe was building and selling Ethernet cards for PCs (and other
> machines) long before the first Mac Ethernet existed. 3COM was founded
> back in 1979. He would certainly not have blocked shipments so that Mac
> could have it first (and you still haven't gotten the year right when Mac
> first got Ethernet).
Sure, at $1,200-$2,100 a card I'm sure he would be happy to do that. But
in terms of reality, the Mac offered the first inexpensive, high speed
data network that didn't take anything but plugging it in. Ethernet at
the time was full of drivers, complex configs, etc. Apple and its users
had no time for that half baked approach. (kinda like Nokia lives today)
> > Well, you need to understand that SJ is the driving force behind the
> > early games like Breakout,
>
> Breakout was created by Nolan Bushnell at Atari in 1976. Apple was just
> getting started at the time.
Yes, but it was SJ's idea according to Nolan, and Woz programmed it, but
Woz's chip count was too advanced for Atari to produce so they went with
Woz's design with more chips... too funny. This was just on Discovery
Channel about 4 days ago.
> > the first PC of course,
>
> People were doing personal computers years earlier. If you want to say
> "the first mass-market personal computer", you might have an argument.
> But that was just an example of being in the right place at the right
> time. With all the people working on PCs, someone was going to have a
> hit.
But none of them took off. They were hobby projects, Not completed
systems as Apple pioneered. Woz built and incredible engineering
masterpiece on the level of Mozart. Engineers to this day still examine
the Apple / as a marvel of the modern world. SJ then put a case around
it (first for any PC) then was able to market it on huge scale which had
never been done before. Millions were sold, Apple was outselling IBM in
terms of total Mhz shipped by 1979.
> It was by no means certain that Apple was going to win either. Atari and
> (especially) Commodore were strong competition. Atari train-wrecked for
> much the same reason that NeXT later did. They were a game company at
> heart, and falsely assumed that their PC market was in game-playing rather
> than software development and computing. The people who stayed true to
> the Atari computer vision ended up in Amiga (Commodore and Atari traded
> their clueful people, but neither ended up well), and apparently there is
> still some little bit of life left in Amiga.
Yes, but commodore and atari were largely game machines. Apple / & //
were mainly consumer and business machines since they had better
software libraries just like the Mac has today over Windows.
> > WWW (NeXT)
>
> So SJ gets to take credit for the work of others just because it was done
> on machines that SJ sold? Tim Berners-Lee invented WWW at CERN in
> Switzerland. Yes, he used a NeXT cube, and NEXTSTEP's Text class had an
> influence on early HTML, but that was it.
Yes, he laid the foundation for major events in human achievement to
happen. The spreadsheet happened because the Apple // had the most
memory of any PC, Page Layout and Fonts happened because of the Mac, WWW
happened because of NeXT. USB, FireWire, Bluetooth, WiFi happened
because of the Mac circa 2001-2003 or so.
> SJ had nothing to deal with the creation of WWW, and totally ignored it
> for many years.
But Interface Builder that shipped with both early NeXT and Leopard had
EVERYTHING to do with www. Tim wouldn't have been able to create www.app
without Steve's help.
> > and
> > Animation Industries (Pixar).
>
> SJ didn't create Pixar. George Lucas did. Lucas sold Pixar to SJ for a
> song ($5 million) when he lost interest in building technology tools (and
> was getting divorced). Pixar subsequently muddled about for the next few
> years, and almost died in 1991.
Ah, but SJ did refine Pixar into the biggest enterprise since Disney.
Lucas had nothing, Steve bought it for $15ish million and turned it into
a $7 billion dream for everyone.
Now Pixar is the premier Animation Studio in the world, but expect it to
fade away since Steve is no longer involved.
> Fortunately for Pixar, SJ started paying attention to it about that time
> as it became clear that NeXT was faltering. He laid off most of its
> employees, axed its unsuccessful computer line, and most importantly won a
> contract with Disney for Toy Story.
Well, it didn't go anything like that, but you can dream.
> All of these were management/marketing measures, and they were successful.
> But that has nothing to do with technical innovations.
>
> > Pretty much everything technical you use
> > today traces back to him making it possible on a mass scale.
>
> Nonsense. SJ is a marketeer and manager, and he has been very lucky to be
> at the right place at the right time.
Yes, and so be it. BG was always in the right place and right time as
well and totally flubbed his entry into the history books. He's the
laughing stock of the PC market, an inept fool by most accounts.
His idiototic performance in front of the WSJ sealed his fate as the
"dumb guy" in the world of PC Computing. He's just a son of a Lawyer,
and learn to cheat and steal at an early age, he created nothing.
See why here:
> However, he is not a technician. I doubt very much that he has ever
> designed a circuit or written a non-trivial program. That isn't his skill
> set.
yes and i will AGREE with that, but he is one of the first in 100's of
years to pull from great minds to build a highly refined, friendly, mass
produced product. Nobody else can do that. Look at MS, look at Nokia,
they are fumbling badly since they don't possess this rare skill.
> > Now the cell phone industry has been touched by his hand, and will never
> > be the same. You'll see what I'm saying in a few years
>
> I know that you will eat your iPhone in a few years.
I your fantasies, you know for a fact Nokia is going to fall because of
the iPhone, you KNOW i'm right, you know that an absurd demand will keep
you honest.
> > Mark, I know you
> > are a bit of a newbie when it comes to high end technology, but you are
> > learning. Good to see it!
>
> Of all the absurd statements that you have made, calling me a "newbie when
> it comes to high end technology" is rather high at the list.
Mark, I know about you and respect your skill. But your ignorance on the
PC market is amazing. It's like you didn't even grow up with this stuff
and know every detail like me. You make incorrect statements without
research. I don't.
> Speaking of "high end technology", are your mommy and daddy going to get
> you a new Mac for Christmas? It must be pretty embarassing for a fanboy
> like you to be stuck with an old PPC.
so you can't even spell the word "embarrassing"? how embarrassing!
and you work for a University? How embarrassing!
grow up Mark, and listen to experts on the profession like me.
-
no reply needed.
Snit
alpine.OSX.0.99999...@pangtzu.panda.com on 11/16/07 10:08
AM:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Oxford wrote:
>> Apple was the first company to have built-in networking as STANDARD
>> starting in 1984 with the Mac.
>
> Oxtard obviously never heard of SUN. Or Digital.
>
> It's also a stretch to call AppleTalk "networking". AppleTalk at its
> inception was little more than a printer I/O bus. It was only later that
> Apple realized that it could be extended to do file sharing.
Where did you hear this?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appletalk>
-----
AppleTalk is a proprietary suite of protocols developed by
Apple Inc for computer networking. It was included in the
original Macintosh (1984) ...
One problem for AppleTalk is that it was originally intended
to be part of a project known as Macintosh Office, which
would consist of a host machine providing routing, printer
sharing and file sharing.
...
Bonjour is Apple's implementation of ZeroConf, which was
written specifically to bring NBP's ease-of-use to the TCP/IP
world.
-----
Not only was AppleTalk designed with networking in mind, it allowed for much
of what is now known as zero-config networking, something that (as far as I
know) no other consumer system had at the time (or for quite some time
after).
I remember the old Mac networks that were set up over the second line of the
phone cables people already had in their houses - using both Macs and Apple
IIgs machines. Such home networks were unheard of (or at least very rare)
at that time in the PC world.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.