Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
evermore.

Wow... just Wow!

You can start to learn what just happened with this video...

http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video

Take a look at the engineering:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/

Here are the full features:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/

Then take a look at the incredible specs:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html

Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is 
being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/

http://developer.apple.com/

and kinda fun... true developer stories:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
y-developerstories-behindtheapps

-

okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99

enjoy!

On Jun 7, 5:06=A0pm, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore.
>
> Wow... just Wow!
>
> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>
> Take a look at the engineering:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>
> Here are the full features:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>
> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>
> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>
> http://developer.apple.com/
>
> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>
> -
>
> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>
> enjoy!

Hello Oxford, long time no.... well... no arguing.. good to see  you
back here friend!

jerryeveretts wrote:

>Hello Oxford, long time no.... well... no arguing.. good to see  you
>back here friend!

*plonk*

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
> evermore.
> 
> Wow... just Wow!
> 
> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
> 
> Take a look at the engineering:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
> 
> Here are the full features:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
> 
> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
> 
> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is 
> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/
> 
> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
> 
> -
> 
> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
> 
> enjoy!

Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
year...

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Jun 7, 5:21=A0pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> > evermore.
>
> > Wow... just Wow!
>
> > You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>
> > Take a look at the engineering:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>
> > Here are the full features:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>
> > Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>
> > Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> > being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>
> >http://developer.apple.com/
>
> > and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
> > y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>
> > -
>
> > okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>
> > enjoy!
>
> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you int=
o
> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> year...
>
> --
> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" =A0-- Alan Baker

How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
other carrier?

If your contract is over anytime in 2010 you can upgrade to the new
iPhone for the full subsidized price.

On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore.

Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat 
compatibility.

OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.

Steve

Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
> > evermore.
> > 
> > Wow... just Wow!
> > 
> > You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
> > 
> > Take a look at the engineering:
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
> > 
> > Here are the full features:
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
> > 
> > Then take a look at the incredible specs:
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
> > 
> > Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is 
> > being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
> > 
> > http://developer.apple.com/
> > 
> > and kinda fun... true developer stories:
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
> > y-developerstories-behindtheapps
> > 
> > -
> > 
> > okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
> > 
> > enjoy!
> 
> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> year...

no edwin, you are wrong as usual... 

"Current AT&T customers can check at http://wireless.att.com by clicking 
on "Check Upgrade Options" after they log in. The improved eligibility 
requirements will allow existing customers to upgrade to the new iPhone 
with no early termination fees."

So basically anyone who expires in 2010 does not pay a fee... please try 
and keep up.

In article
<0e53d621-c374-4d33-bbe4-e9b17411772a@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
> > a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> > year...
> 
> How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
> other carrier?

it's exactly the same, but since it's apple it must be bad, not to
mention other companies bring out phones more often than once a year.

> If your contract is over anytime in 2010 you can upgrade to the new
> iPhone for the full subsidized price.

in other words, they just shortened a lot of contracts, without being
asked.

jerryeveretts <ifreeley@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Take a look at the engineering:
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
> >
> > Here are the full features:
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
> >
> > Then take a look at the incredible specs:
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
> >
> > Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> > being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
> >
> > http://developer.apple.com/
> >
> > and kinda fun... true developer stories:
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
> > y-developerstories-behindtheapps
> >
> > -
> >
> > okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
> >
> > enjoy!
> 
> Hello Oxford, long time no.... well... no arguing.. good to see  you
> back here friend!

Thanks Jerry! Good to hear from you as well... it was certainly a 
beautiful day for technology advancements...

Talk with you soon, Oxford...

whiny little Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> [before newsgroup trimming], Oxford wrote:
> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 ...
>
> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> year...

Looks like the ETF has been changed this time, Edwin.  Better go look
it up to get the facts.

(not that you are one, but)  Current AT&T customers can check at
http://wireless.att.com by clicking on "Check Upgrade Options" after
they log in.


-hh

In article <IbmdnWd3hMp4_pDRnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat 
> compatibility.

speculation.

> OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.

what were they going to say? 10.7 is a ways off.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:25:55 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote:

> On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> evermore.
> 
> Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat 
> compatibility.
> 
> OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.
> 
> Steve

Apple has milked as much out of the Mac as it could.   The writing is on
the wall.   Gadgets give Apple the kind of control over OS, apps, and
content they always wanted, but could never achieve, with personal
computers... and the margins... OMG the margins... even beyond what they
ever made with the Mac...

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:

> On Jun 7, 5:21�pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>>> evermore.
>>
>>> Wow... just Wow!
>>
>>> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>>
>>> Take a look at the engineering:
>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>>
>>> Here are the full features:
>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>>
>>> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>>
>>> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
>>> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>>
>>>http://developer.apple.com/
>>
>>> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
>>> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>>
>>> -
>>
>>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>
>>> enjoy!
>>
>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
>> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
>> year...
>>
>> --
>> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" �-- Alan Baker
> 
> How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
> other carrier?

They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better version a
short time later.

> If your contract is over anytime in 2010 you can upgrade to the new
> iPhone for the full subsidized price.

IOW you're not addressing my remarks about the people who bought the new
iPhone model that was released just last year, you're just obfuscating as
usual.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Jun 7, 5:31=A0pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:25:55 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote:
> > On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> >> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> >> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> >> evermore.
>
> > Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only. =A0No Macs... No iChat
> > compatibility.
>
> > OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.
>
> > Steve
>
> Apple has milked as much out of the Mac as it could. =A0 The writing is o=
n
> the wall. =A0 Gadgets give Apple the kind of control over OS, apps, and
> content they always wanted, but could never achieve, with personal
> computers... and the margins... OMG the margins... even beyond what they
> ever made with the Mac...
>
> --
> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" =A0-- Alan Baker

Considerably less hub bub over this version of the iPhone 4G.
Surprised they are even allowed to call it 4G since it isn't.
Essentially it looks they may have made the camera acutally usable.
Pretty big yawnfest on this one.

Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> writes:

> On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> evermore.
>
> Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat
> compatibility.
>
> OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.

Exactly. But since that thingy seems to be based on open protocols
support for Macs should be a matter of time only.

They sold 100 million iPhones, iPod touch and iPads now. Macs are only a
side business meanwhile. If you have trouble to translate that into
meaningful numbers: Imagine all owners of these things would stack them
on top of each other and assume them to be just 10mm thick and you would
get a tower a thousand kilometres high. That's about four times as high
as the orbit of the International Space Station and more than a
thousands times higher than the highest building on earth. Or: A lot of
these things.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:20:00 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> jerryeveretts wrote:
> 
>>Hello Oxford, long time no.... well... no arguing.. good to see  you
>>back here friend!
> 
> *plonk*

You still have people left to "plonk?"   It seems you've already plonked
everybody on Usenet at least twice...

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

In article <1ny1w3bwltcap$.1vnwktvk9nlwk.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
<thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
> > other carrier?
> 
> They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better version a
> short time later.

like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.

In article 
<35866c7f-aee8-4ee0-8f26-13c2e90a0e0c@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

Considerably less hub bub over this version of the iPhone 4G.
> Surprised they are even allowed to call it 4G since it isn't.
> Essentially it looks they may have made the camera acutally usable.
> Pretty big yawnfest on this one.

Check again, it's called iPhone 4 (no G here at all).

In article 
<35866c7f-aee8-4ee0-8f26-13c2e90a0e0c@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Considerably less hub bub over this version of the iPhone 4G.
> Surprised they are even allowed to call it 4G since it isn't.

They're not calling it the iPhone 4G, moron; they're calling it the iPhone 
4.

> Pretty big yawnfest on this one.

Especially you.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <c1cmocfvi6ig.1xzf17me289di.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
> > 
> > enjoy!
> 
> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you 
> into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone 
> every year...

Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  
AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
of the contract.

Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't upgrade 
from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:26:57 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
>>> evermore.
>>> 
>>> Wow... just Wow!
>>> 
>>> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>>> 
>>> Take a look at the engineering:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>>> 
>>> Here are the full features:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>>> 
>>> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>>> 
>>> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is 
>>> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>>> 
>>> http://developer.apple.com/
>>> 
>>> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
>>> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>> 
>>> enjoy!
>> 
>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
>> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
>> year...
> 
> no edwin, you are wrong as usual... 

You misspelled "yes Edwin, you are correct once again..."

> "Current AT&T customers can check at http://wireless.att.com by clicking 
> on "Check Upgrade Options" after they log in. The improved eligibility 
> requirements will allow existing customers to upgrade to the new iPhone 
> with no early termination fees."
> 
> So basically anyone who expires in 2010 does not pay a fee...

You can't get the dead to pay fees.

> please try and keep up.

So basically what you posted doesn't apply to anybody who bought a new
iPhone a year or less ago, and I am correct, while you are wrong... as
always.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:29:30 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote:

> whiny little Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> [before newsgroup trimming], Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 ...
>>
>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
>> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
>> year...
> 
> Looks like the ETF has been changed this time, Edwin.  Better go look
> it up to get the facts.
> 
> (not that you are one, but)  Current AT&T customers can check at
> http://wireless.att.com by clicking on "Check Upgrade Options" after
> they log in.
> 
> 
> -hh

I've already addressed that.  It only applies to those who's contract
expires in 2010, which doesn't cover those who bought a new iPhone a year
or less ago.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

In article <1ny1w3bwltcap$.1vnwktvk9nlwk.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > If your contract is over anytime in 2010 you can upgrade to the new 
> > iPhone for the full subsidized price.
> 
> IOW you're not addressing my remarks about the people who bought the new 
> iPhone model that was released just last year, you're just obfuscating 
> as usual.

People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in December 
2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to get the 
iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.

Do you really like making a fool of yourself?

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:00:42 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <1ny1w3bwltcap$.1vnwktvk9nlwk.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> If your contract is over anytime in 2010 you can upgrade to the new 
>>> iPhone for the full subsidized price.
>> 
>> IOW you're not addressing my remarks about the people who bought the new 
>> iPhone model that was released just last year, you're just obfuscating 
>> as usual.
> 
> People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in December 
> 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to get the 
> iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.

Prove it.

> Do you really like making a fool of yourself?

You have me confused with Michelle Steiner.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you 
> > into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone 
> > every year...
> 
> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  
> AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
> is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
> of the contract.
> 
> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't upgrade 
> from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.

exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly upgrade... 
gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay and there 
is basically zero cost to upgrade.

it's a no brainer...

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:58:41 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <c1cmocfvi6ig.1xzf17me289di.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>> 
>>> enjoy!
>> 
>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you 
>> into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone 
>> every year...
> 
> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  

Only when I'm trying to impersonate you.

> AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
> is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
> of the contract.

So what does that do for the people who bought iPhones a month or two ago?

> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't upgrade 
> from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.

You already got raped by Apple as much as you could take... you thought
staying with the 3G would be better than grabbing your ankles one more
time...

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better version a
> > short time later.
> 
> like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.

but now that Apple is engineering their own smartphone processors, Apple 
will always have the fastest phone from here on out... that's the 
difference of what happened today.. couple that with the retina 
display... and the iPhone remains the top phone for the next several 
decades.

check out the display...

http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/

nobody is even close to that level of clarity.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:08:25 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you 
>>> into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone 
>>> every year...
>> 
>> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  
>> AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
>> is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
>> of the contract.
>> 
>> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't upgrade 
>> from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
> 
> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly upgrade... 
> gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay and there 
> is basically zero cost to upgrade.

Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
one for the same price from Apple?

> it's a no brainer...

I think everybody can agree on your lack of brains.

> http://www.apple.com/iphone/

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

In article <13z9efa2sc4rq$.1xc08oek2eund$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
<thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
> one for the same price from Apple?

because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.

go look on ebay. used iphones typically sell for $350-600, depending on
model, condition, whether it has a case, etc.

In article <070620101519377556%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <13z9efa2sc4rq$.1xc08oek2eund$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
> > one for the same price from Apple?
> 
> because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.

er, does *not* come with a contract.

In article <yxotkr4ar9ly.1mk0lmahc57sv$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:25:55 -0700, Steve de Mena wrote:
> 
> > On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> >> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> >> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> >> evermore.
> > 
> > Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat 
> > compatibility.
> > 
> > OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.
> > 
> > Steve
> 
> Apple has milked as much out of the Mac as it could.   The writing is on
> the wall.   Gadgets give Apple the kind of control over OS, apps, and
> content they always wanted, but could never achieve, with personal
> computers... and the margins... OMG the margins... even beyond what they
> ever made with the Mac...

The Mac is for Apple what might be termed a mature product.

Oxford wrote:
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
> evermore.
> 
> Wow... just Wow!
> 
> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
> 
> Take a look at the engineering:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
> 
> Here are the full features:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
> 
> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
> 
> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is 
> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/
> 
> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
> 
> -
> 
> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
> 
> enjoy!

(not sarcasm)

Hail the iPhone (Verizon I hope)!

Glory to Jobs!

-- 
Service Guarantees Citizenship

Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> >> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't upgrade 
> >> from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
> > 
> > exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly upgrade... 
> > gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay and there 
> > is basically zero cost to upgrade.
> 
> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
> one for the same price from Apple?

it's called international "jail breaking", or "free of contract"... any 
model of iphone fetches an extreme premium outside the US... the planet 
wants iPhones and nothing else... check ebay...

then jail break it... it's an easy $200 in profit...

http://blog.iphone-dev.org/

> > it's a no brainer...
> 
> > http://www.apple.com/iphone/

thanks!

Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in December 
> > 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to get the 
> > iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
> 
> Prove it.

this will help you learn:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/how_to_tell_if_youre_eligib
le_for_atts_iphone_4_upgrade_pricing.html

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:19:37 -0700, nospam wrote:

> In article <13z9efa2sc4rq$.1xc08oek2eund$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
>> one for the same price from Apple?
> 
> because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.
> 
> go look on ebay. used iphones typically sell for $350-600, depending on
> model, condition, whether it has a case, etc.

I wouldn't buy a used iPhone with no warranty, that may have been dropped
into a toilet bowl for all I know.

If the AT&T contract is so bad, why do you expect new iPhone buyers to sign
up for it?

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in December 
> > 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to get the 
> > iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
> 
> Prove it.

i just dialed *639# - with an iPhone 3GS bought 11 months ago, the extra 
cost to upgrade to the iPhone 4:

$18

so edwin, please quit being a moron...

In article <1o2fnnyiyttts$.xw6y37sdnls1$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in 
> > December 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to 
> > get the iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
> 
> Prove it.

It's right in AT&T's press releases.  Do you want me to prove that the sun 
shines in the daytime too?

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <bvszmslaqrj8$.mr2e3mp56qej.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > please try and keep up.
> 
> So basically what you posted doesn't apply to anybody who bought a new 
> iPhone a year or less ago, and I am correct, while you are wrong... as 
> always.

No, you are wrong, as usual.  AT&T allows fully subsidized upgrades from 
six months before the contract terminates, which means that anyone who 
bought an iPhone a year ago falls within the window of this year, and 
therefore has their upgrade date adjusted so they can buy the iPhone 4 this 
month at the fully subsidized price.

This is something that they didn't do last year for the 3GS, and lots of 
customers were upset about that; they apparently learned from that lesson.  
(Or maybe Apple learned from it and got AT&T to do it this year.)

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <apony-E5128A.16382207062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> then jail break it... it's an easy $200 in profit...

not even close. jailbroken iphones may get a little more money but not
much more since it's very easy to do.

In article <khm8rhxalhzj.rhfdg4pigsur$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  
> 
> Only when I'm trying to impersonate you.

If you succeeded in impersonating me, you wouldn't look foolish.

> > AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
> > is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
> > of the contract.
> 
> So what does that do for the people who bought iPhones a month or two ago?

They have to wait unless they want to pay a higher price.  Just like if 
they had bought an Android phone from any wireless provider.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <nxmu5z1tr7bi.717f6gbem1r4$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
<thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't buy a used iPhone with no warranty, that may have been dropped
> into a toilet bowl for all I know.

then don't. 

there are plenty of fully functional iphones on ebay, some even have a
warranty. some are scuffed, some are pristine. even ones *with* water
damage or cracked screens sell for more than $200.

> If the AT&T contract is so bad, why do you expect new iPhone buyers to sign
> up for it?

having a 2 year contract on *any* carrier is a ball & chain.

In article <13z9efa2sc4rq$.1xc08oek2eund$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new 
> one for the same price from Apple?

Because the used one doesn't come with a contract.  I don't know whether 
they'd pay that much for a 3G, but there definitely is a market for them.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <070620101519377556%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
> > one for the same price from Apple?
> 
> because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.

You mean does not, right?

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <michelle-130883.15505107062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> No, you are wrong, as usual.  AT&T allows fully subsidized upgrades from 
> six months before the contract terminates, which means that anyone who 
> bought an iPhone a year ago falls within the window of this year, and 
> therefore has their upgrade date adjusted so they can buy the iPhone 4 this 
> month at the fully subsidized price.
> 
> This is something that they didn't do last year for the 3GS, and lots of 
> customers were upset about that; they apparently learned from that lesson.  
> (Or maybe Apple learned from it and got AT&T to do it this year.)

or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly
increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and t-mobile get
the phone.

In article <michelle-9D4F71.15572607062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
> > > one for the same price from Apple?
> > 
> > because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.
> 
> You mean does not, right?

yea, read my followup :)

In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
 Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you 
> > > into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone 
> > > every year...
> > 
> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  
> > AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
> > is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
> > of the contract.
> > 
> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't upgrade 
> > from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
> 
> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly upgrade... 
> gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay and there 
> is basically zero cost to upgrade.
> 
> it's a no brainer...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/

Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock 
people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know something 
about iPhone exclusivity running out.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <michelle-7AE5AB.15565007062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new 
> > one for the same price from Apple?
> 
> Because the used one doesn't come with a contract.  I don't know whether 
> they'd pay that much for a 3G, but there definitely is a market for them.

they definitely pay that much, or more. the original iphone sells for
around $150 these days.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore.
> 

What Linux distro does it run?
-- 
Rick

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > then jail break it... it's an easy $200 in profit...
> 
> not even close. jailbroken iphones may get a little more money but not
> much more since it's very easy to do.

i'm talking about internationally, not domestic... if you have an iPhone 
G2, 3G, 3GS, jailbreak it... and it's worth $199-299 or more is my 
point. without jailbreaking, $175 via ebay...

In article <070620101558227040%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > This is something that they didn't do last year for the 3GS, and lots 
> > of customers were upset about that; they apparently learned from that 
> > lesson.  (Or maybe Apple learned from it and got AT&T to do it this 
> > year.)
> 
> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly 
> increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and t-mobile get 
> the phone.

That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple and AT&T will 
find themselves the subject of (another?) investigation by the federal 
government.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <070620101559210609%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > > Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
> > > > one for the same price from Apple?
> > > 
> > > because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.
> > 
> > You mean does not, right?
> 
> yea, read my followup :)

I did, right after sending that reply.  ;)

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <070620101601167477%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new 
> > > one for the same price from Apple?
> > 
> > Because the used one doesn't come with a contract.  I don't know whether 
> > they'd pay that much for a 3G, but there definitely is a market for them.
> 
> they definitely pay that much, or more. the original iphone sells for
> around $150 these days.

So, should I put it on eBay or Craig's list or where?

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> evermore.
>> 
>
> What Linux distro does it run?

Don't be such a prissy little dick all your life Rick. What Linux kernel
does Windows run? 

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:

> In article <070620101558227040%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > This is something that they didn't do last year for the 3GS, and lots 
>> > of customers were upset about that; they apparently learned from that 
>> > lesson.  (Or maybe Apple learned from it and got AT&T to do it this 
>> > year.)
>> 
>> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly 
>> increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and t-mobile get 
>> the phone.
>
> That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple and AT&T will 
> find themselves the subject of (another?) investigation by the federal 
> government.

Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a cheaper
phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended contract.

It's perfectly legal and honest.

Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> What Linux distro does it run?

Nobody cares about Linux anymore, the iOS has now taken over all UNIX 
based mobile devices... you can get up to speed here:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/06/apples-ios-4-due-out-june-21-fr
ee-to-all-users.ars

or developer.apple.com/

enjoy!

On 2010-06-07, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better version a
>> > short time later.
>> 
>> like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.
>
> but now that Apple is engineering their own smartphone processors, Apple 
> will always have the fastest phone from here on out... that's the 
> difference of what happened today..

Hardly.  The A4 includes a single core 1GHz ARM processor, if it is
the same one as in the iPad.  The Qualcomm QSD8672 chipset (the
CDMA+3G one) includes a dual-core 1.5GHz Snapdragon ARM processor
and is used by the HTC Scorpion, which should be available before
the iPhone 4 is more than a couple of months old.

I suspect speed isn't the point of the A4, though.  I'll bet the
HTC Scorpion is a much thicker phone with a bigger battery and
shorter battery life.  The new iPhone is built with almost no
parts.

Dennis Ferguson

In article <apony-3CDFCB.17032107062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > then jail break it... it's an easy $200 in profit...
> > 
> > not even close. jailbroken iphones may get a little more money but not
> > much more since it's very easy to do.
> 
> i'm talking about internationally, not domestic...

doesn't matter

> if you have an iPhone 
> G2, 3G, 3GS, jailbreak it... and it's worth $199-299 or more is my 
> point. without jailbreaking, $175 via ebay...

no it is not

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > Because the used one doesn't come with a contract.  I don't know whether 
> > > they'd pay that much for a 3G, but there definitely is a market for them.
> > 
> > they definitely pay that much, or more. the original iphone sells for
> > around $150 these days.
> 
> So, should I put it on eBay or Craig's list or where?

both suck... craigs... no fees but more work, 90% chance of 
strangeness... ebay, huge fees, complicated, but probably an extra $10 
in profit, plus you'll have to wait at least three days to sell...

In article <michelle-632AEF.16061907062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> So, should I put it on eBay or Craig's list or where?

either one. they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

In article <apony-79C0E1.17174007062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> both suck... craigs... no fees but more work, 90% chance of 
> strangeness... ebay, huge fees, complicated, but probably an extra $10 
> in profit, plus you'll have to wait at least three days to sell...

ebay is not complicated and no you don't need to wait 3 days either.
where do you come up with this shit?

meh

On 6/7/2010 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore.
>
> Wow... just Wow!
>
> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>
> Take a look at the engineering:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>
> Here are the full features:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>
> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>
> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>
> http://developer.apple.com/
>
> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>
> -
>
> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>
> enjoy!

In article <huju5l$9c2$4@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly 
> >> increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and t-mobile 
> >> get the phone.
> >
> > That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple and AT&T 
> > will find themselves the subject of (another?) investigation by the 
> > federal government.
> 
> Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a cheaper 
> phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended contract.
> 
> It's perfectly legal and honest.

Nope; it's deception by not revealing pertinent information, akin in 
concept to insider trading.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > both suck... craigs... no fees but more work, 90% chance of 
> > strangeness... ebay, huge fees, complicated, but probably an extra $10 
> > in profit, plus you'll have to wait at least three days to sell...
> 
> ebay is not complicated and no you don't need to wait 3 days either.
> where do you come up with this shit?

you obviously haven't used ebay in a few years... it takes over 45 
clicks to post something on ebay, and they no longer allow 1 day 
postings, 3 days is the minimum.. so learn to check facts before you 
post.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > i'm talking about internationally, not domestic...
> 
> doesn't matter

no, you are incorrect... international gains you about $30 on an item 
like this even if an international bidder doesn't win... please learn 
how ebay works.

> > if you have an iPhone 
> > G2, 3G, 3GS, jailbreak it... and it's worth $199-299 or more is my 
> > point. without jailbreaking, $175 via ebay...
> 
> no it is not

no, again, quit being ignorant... pre-jailbreaking an iPhone earns you 
$25 or more, so learn to use facts...

"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in message 
news:nxmu5z1tr7bi.717f6gbem1r4$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:19:37 -0700, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <13z9efa2sc4rq$.1xc08oek2eund$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
>> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a new
>>> one for the same price from Apple?
>>
>> because a used one does come with a 2 year contract.
>>
>> go look on ebay. used iphones typically sell for $350-600, depending on
>> model, condition, whether it has a case, etc.
>
> I wouldn't buy a used iPhone with no warranty, that may have been dropped
> into a toilet bowl for all I know.

To be honest, Edwin, you wouldn't buy an iPhone under any circumstances, 
would you?

I bought a used original iPhone for my wife back in late 2008 from a guy who 
upgraded to a 3G.  I paid nearly $300, about what he paid for the 3G, making 
his upgrade free.

My wife and I use T-Mobile, rather than AT&T, so I jailborke, unlocked, and 
it's been running like a top ever since.

My last four or five personal phones were used- models that T-Mobile didn't 
offer.

> If the AT&T contract is so bad, why do you expect new iPhone buyers to 
> sign
> up for it?

Who said it's "bad"?- there are plenty of people happy with AT&T, and plenty 
who don't use them.  In my case, my T-Mobile plan is an old grandfathered 
plan with $6/month/phone unlimited data.  Switching to AT&T would raise our 
bill about $50/month, so the slight premium I paid for the used iPhone is 
easily offset by lower monthly fees.

In article <michelle-211B41.16310807062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <huju5l$9c2$4@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly 
> > >> increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and t-mobile 
> > >> get the phone.
> > >
> > > That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple and AT&T 
> > > will find themselves the subject of (another?) investigation by the 
> > > federal government.
> > 
> > Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a cheaper 
> > phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended contract.
> > 
> > It's perfectly legal and honest.
> 
> Nope; it's deception by not revealing pertinent information, akin in 
> concept to insider trading.

That's silly. Companies have no obligation to announce future products 
or business relationships.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <slrni0qv7q.8f.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>,
 Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 2010-06-07, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> > They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better 
> >> > version a
> >> > short time later.
> >> 
> >> like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.
> >
> > but now that Apple is engineering their own smartphone processors, Apple 
> > will always have the fastest phone from here on out... that's the 
> > difference of what happened today..
> 
> Hardly.  The A4 includes a single core 1GHz ARM processor, if it is
> the same one as in the iPad.  The Qualcomm QSD8672 chipset (the
> CDMA+3G one) includes a dual-core 1.5GHz Snapdragon ARM processor
> and is used by the HTC Scorpion, which should be available before
> the iPhone 4 is more than a couple of months old.
> 
> I suspect speed isn't the point of the A4, though.  I'll bet the
> HTC Scorpion is a much thicker phone with a bigger battery and
> shorter battery life.  The new iPhone is built with almost no
> parts.
> 
> Dennis Ferguson

A lot of the perceived speed of the iOS devices is actually software 
optimization. Being able to use a more power efficient processor and 
still deliver good performance via carefully tailored software is one of 
the benefits Apple derives from building the "whole widget".

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <znu-EA29A0.19470707062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly 
> > > >> increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and 
> > > >> t-mobile get the phone.
> > > >
> > > > That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple and 
> > > > AT&T will find themselves the subject of (another?) investigation 
> > > > by the federal government.
> > > 
> > > Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a 
> > > cheaper phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended 
> > > contract.
> > > 
> > > It's perfectly legal and honest.
> > 
> > Nope; it's deception by not revealing pertinent information, akin in 
> > concept to insider trading.
> 
> That's silly. Companies have no obligation to announce future products 
> or business relationships.

When it cons customers, they do.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article
<apony-E96882.17393607062010@n003-000-000-000.static.ge.com>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > both suck... craigs... no fees but more work, 90% chance of 
> > > strangeness... ebay, huge fees, complicated, but probably an extra $10 
> > > in profit, plus you'll have to wait at least three days to sell...
> > 
> > ebay is not complicated and no you don't need to wait 3 days either.
> > where do you come up with this shit?
> 
> you obviously haven't used ebay in a few years...

wrong. i have a few items listed right now and bought a couple of
things in the past week. i have some photos to go through and there
will be a bunch more listed.

> it takes over 45 
> clicks to post something on ebay,

not even remotely close. where do you come up with this shit?

> and they no longer allow 1 day 
> postings, 3 days is the minimum.. so learn to check facts before you 
> post.

if only you would.

<http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/formats.html>

Auction-style listing: Duration: 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10 days. Real estate:
30 days

Fixed price listing: Duration: 3, 5, 7, 10, or 30 days, or Good 'Til
Cancelled

In article
<apony-D85F95.17433007062010@n003-000-000-000.static.ge.com>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> no, again, quit being ignorant...

take your own advice

> pre-jailbreaking an iPhone earns you 
> $25 or more, so learn to use facts...

you originally said $200. now it's down to $25?

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:10:34 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> What Linux distro does it run?
> 
> Nobody cares about Linux anymore, 

Yes, they do. Buy a clue.


-- 
Rick

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:07:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>>> evermore.
>>> 
>>> 
>> What Linux distro does it run?
> 
> Don't be such a prissy little dick all your life Rick. What Linux kernel
> does Windows run?

Another fine example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux 
Advocate Quark. </sarcasm>

Many of us are tired of fanboi Oxford and his incessant Apple 
cheerleading.

-- 
Rick

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:38:22 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> >> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>> >> upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>> > 
>> > exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>> > upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on
>> > ebay and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>> 
>> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a
>> new one for the same price from Apple?
> 
> it's called international "jail breaking", or "free of contract"... any
> model of iphone fetches an extreme premium outside the US... the planet
> wants iPhones and nothing else

Do you really believe that blather? Apple isn't even the top cell phone 
vendor in the world.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post yoOdnQiIYMwx55DRnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@supernews.com on 6/7/10
4:03 PM:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> evermore.
>> 
> 
> What Linux distro does it run?

I suspect if someone gets Linux running on it and this spreads then it will
be a special distro just for the iPhone.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>> > > you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>> > > iPhone every year...
>> > 
>> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
>> > foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
>> > whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to
>> > 12 months before the end of the contract.
>> > 
>> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>> > upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>> 
>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay
>> and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>> 
>> it's a no brainer...
>> 
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
> 
> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock
> people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know something
> about iPhone exclusivity running out.

.... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them for 2 
years. If you don't they may jump sooner.



-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 6PadnZ5TM6nIEJDRnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com on 6/7/10
5:22 PM:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> 
>> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
>>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>>>> you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>>>> iPhone every year...
>>>> 
>>>> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
>>>> foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
>>>> whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to
>>>> 12 months before the end of the contract.
>>>> 
>>>> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>>>> upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>>> 
>>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay
>>> and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>>> 
>>> it's a no brainer...
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
>> 
>> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock
>> people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know something
>> about iPhone exclusivity running out.
> 
> ... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them for 2
> years. If you don't they may jump sooner.

Right.  Lock them in now before they can jump... which means the iPhone will
likely not be tied to one carrier for long.

Which is what ZnU said.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 07/06/10 2:31 PM, Edwin wrote:

<snip>

> Apple has milked as much out of the Mac as it could.   The writing is on
> the wall.   Gadgets give Apple the kind of control over OS, apps, and
> content they always wanted, but could never achieve, with personal
> computers... and the margins... OMG the margins... even beyond what they
> ever made with the Mac...

True, but the margins on Macs are still much better than the margins on 
Windows PCs because Apple is able to charge considerably more for 
comparable hardware to those that prefer OS-X to Windows 7. Still a 
business worth being in, just not as lucrative as the cell phone, PDA, 
music player, and content business.

But you're right, the margins they're getting on consumer electronics 
devices are the envy of all other companies selling in that market. Good 
for them. We need more U.S. companies designing and marketing compelling 
products.

The best part of Jobs speech this morning was when the demo of the 
iPhone 4 wasn't working...

"I'm sorry guys, I don't know what's going on," he said to the crowd of 
developers and media. "Got any suggestions?" he asked. Someone from the 
back helpfully shouted, "Verizon!" Though the crowd laughed, Jobs took 
it in stride. He said simply, "We're actually on Wi-Fi here."

It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the 
AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new 
cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.

I was hoping for a new iPod touch model that was essentially an iPhone 4 
without the phone part, or at least with a camera, for those tens of 
millions of U.S. residents that can't use AT&T.

In article <IbmdnWd3hMp4_pDRnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> > evermore.
> 
> Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat 
> compatibility.
> 
> OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.

Note, though, that he said FaceTime would be submitted to a standards 
body to become an open standard, so third party developers can cover 
Macs (and non-iPhone phones).



-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <c1cmocfvi6ig.1xzf17me289di.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you into
> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> year...

And no speakerphone, either...right Edwin?


-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <4c0d91f2$0$1647$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> True, but the margins on Macs are still much better than the margins on 
> Windows PCs because Apple is able to charge considerably more for 
> comparable hardware to those that prefer OS-X to Windows 7. 

false. for similar specs, prices are similar.

> It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the 
> AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new 
> cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.

why not wifi? it does 802.11n and is much faster than any 3g network
could ever hope to be.

> I was hoping for a new iPod touch model that was essentially an iPhone 4 
> without the phone part, or at least with a camera, for those tens of 
> millions of U.S. residents that can't use AT&T.

september is when ipods are announced.

In article <4c0d91f2$0$1647$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the 
> AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new 
> cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.

Considering that WiFi is faster than 3G, it doesn't say a thing about the 
AT&T network.

> I was hoping for a new iPod touch model that was essentially an iPhone 4 
> without the phone part, or at least with a camera, for those tens of 
> millions of U.S. residents that can't use AT&T.

iPods are on a different production/release schedule than iPhones.  They 
get released in September, just before the holiday buying season.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> > Nobody cares about Linux anymore, 
> 
> Yes, they do. Buy a clue.

sorry, i should have included "professional" in the sentence...

no "professional" cares about Linux anymore...

thanks for the catch rick!

this is where the smart UNIX money is...

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:05:09 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > Nobody cares about Linux anymore,
>> 
>> Yes, they do. Buy a clue.
> 
> sorry, i should have included "professional" in the sentence...
> 
> no "professional" cares about Linux anymore...

Yes, they do. Buy a clue.

-- 
Rick

On 07/06/10 5:51 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4c0d91f2$0$1647$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com>  wrote:
>
>> True, but the margins on Macs are still much better than the margins on
>> Windows PCs because Apple is able to charge considerably more for
>> comparable hardware to those that prefer OS-X to Windows 7.
>
> false. for similar specs, prices are similar.

This has never been the case. For example, compare Intel i7 based laptop 
machines from Apple and Dell. The Studio XPS with a similar display, 
better graphics chip, faster memory, faster CPU, longer warranty, but 
slightly smaller HDD is $900 less than the closest Mac Book. You can 
never compare exact hardware, but you can come close. Apple is able to 
charge a big premium over Windows based machine. This is good thing for 
Apple, not a bad thing, but it's not something that can be denied.

>> It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the
>> AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new
>> cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.
>
> why not wifi? it does 802.11n and is much faster than any 3g network
> could ever hope to be.

Because it's a phone, and because AT&T's network is the core reason that 
Android sales have been increasing at a faster rate than iPhone sales. 
The new iPhone will help, but they have not addressed the huge untapped 
market for iPhones in the U.S.--people that will not use AT&T.

On Jun 7, 5:35=A0pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
> > other carrier?
>
> They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better version=
 a
> short time later.
>

So you mean other phone manufacturers will *never* sell a better phone
than they are selling right now?  Apple releases a new phone like
clockwork once a year in June.

> > If your contract is over anytime in 2010 you can upgrade to the new
> > iPhone for the full subsidized price.
>
> IOW you're not addressing my remarks about the people who bought the new
> iPhone model that was released just last year, you're just obfuscating as
> usual.

So, HTC, Motorola, etc. never release new phones?  When iPhone OS 4.0
is released, every iPhone 3GS user and 3G user worldwide will be able
to upgrade that day.  Unlike other phones when you have to hope that
the hardware manufacturer will upgrade the OS on old phones and then
you have to wait on the carrier.

On Jun 7, 7:12=A0pm, Dennis Ferguson <dcfergu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2010-06-07, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>
> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> > They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better ve=
rsion a
> >> > short time later.
>
> >> like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.
>
> > but now that Apple is engineering their own smartphone processors, Appl=
e
> > will always have the fastest phone from here on out... that's the
> > difference of what happened today..
>
> Hardly. =A0The A4 includes a single core 1GHz ARM processor, if it is
> the same one as in the iPad. =A0The Qualcomm QSD8672 chipset (the
> CDMA+3G one) includes a dual-core 1.5GHz Snapdragon ARM processor
> and is used by the HTC Scorpion,

You mean *will be* don't you?  Not *is*.

On Jun 7, 8:48=A0pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <c1cmocfvi6ig.1xzf17me289di....@40tude.net>,
>
> =A0Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you i=
nto
> > a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> > year...
>
> And no speakerphone, either...right Edwin?
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

Not a usable one that you can actually hear.

In article <michelle-6DB94B.16494007062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <znu-EA29A0.19470707062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the newly 
> > > > >> increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint and 
> > > > >> t-mobile get the phone.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple and 
> > > > > AT&T will find themselves the subject of (another?) investigation 
> > > > > by the federal government.
> > > > 
> > > > Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a 
> > > > cheaper phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended 
> > > > contract.
> > > > 
> > > > It's perfectly legal and honest.
> > > 
> > > Nope; it's deception by not revealing pertinent information, akin in 
> > > concept to insider trading.
> > 
> > That's silly. Companies have no obligation to announce future products 
> > or business relationships.
> 
> When it cons customers, they do.

There's no con here. You sign a two year contract, you get a two year 
contract.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

"MuahMan" <muahman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d98b0d8d-7de4-430e-9e2d-6758418571ab@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 7, 8:48 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <c1cmocfvi6ig.1xzf17me289di....@40tude.net>,
>>
>>  Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you 
>> > into
>> > a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
>> > year...
>>
>> And no speakerphone, either...right Edwin?
>>
>> --
>> --Tim Smith
>

> Not a usable one that you can actually hear.

Pull your head out of your ass and you'll be able to hear better.


 

In article <Dd2dnZG96K08FpDRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@supernews.com>,
 Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:38:22 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
> > Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> >> Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
> >> >> upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
> >> > 
> >> > exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
> >> > upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on
> >> > ebay and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
> >> 
> >> Why would somebody buy your used iPhone for $199 when they can get a
> >> new one for the same price from Apple?
> > 
> > it's called international "jail breaking", or "free of contract"... any
> > model of iphone fetches an extreme premium outside the US... the planet
> > wants iPhones and nothing else
> 
> Do you really believe that blather? Apple isn't even the top cell phone 
> vendor in the world.

They might be on a profit basis....

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/05/apples-share-of-cellphone-industry-pr
ofit-estimated-at-32-for-first-half-of-2009/

That doesn't make Oxford's statement particularly less absurd, however.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <reply_in_group-3FE77F.17472307062010@news.supernews.com>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <IbmdnWd3hMp4_pDRnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 6/7/10 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> > > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> > > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> > > evermore.
> > 
> > Video conferencing iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 only.  No Macs... No iChat 
> > compatibility.
> > 
> > OS X and/or Macs were completely cut out of the keynote.
> 
> Note, though, that he said FaceTime would be submitted to a standards 
> body to become an open standard, so third party developers can cover 
> Macs (and non-iPhone phones).

It's hard to imagine Apple won't support it in iChat in 10.7 or 
something.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <070620101751535746%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <4c0d91f2$0$1647$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > True, but the margins on Macs are still much better than the margins on 
> > Windows PCs because Apple is able to charge considerably more for 
> > comparable hardware to those that prefer OS-X to Windows 7. 
> 
> false. for similar specs, prices are similar.

Yep. It's the old "Macs are more expensive" myth.  :-\

The profit margins for RESELLERS are actually better on Windows PCs than
they are on Macs ... which is why there are rarely any sales here in New
Zealand that include Apple equipment (at best we get an occasional 10% off
sale, but that's mostly thanks to the recent / current financial problems,
so they're trying to get people buying).

In article <znu-E9A236.21241507062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the 
> > > > > >> newly increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint 
> > > > > >> and t-mobile get the phone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple 
> > > > > > and AT&T will find themselves the subject of (another?) 
> > > > > > investigation by the federal government.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a 
> > > > > cheaper phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended 
> > > > > contract.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It's perfectly legal and honest.
> > > > 
> > > > Nope; it's deception by not revealing pertinent information, akin 
> > > > in concept to insider trading.
> > > 
> > > That's silly. Companies have no obligation to announce future 
> > > products or business relationships.
> > 
> > When it cons customers, they do.
> 
> There's no con here. You sign a two year contract, you get a two year 
> contract.

The con would be in withholding relevant facts.  By itself AT&T wouldn't be 
guilty of the con, but in conjunction with Apple, it would be involved in a 
conspiracy.

Of course, this is all moot as I doubt that a Verizon iPhone will be 
announced any time soon.  But if there is one, I'm sure that the feds will 
investigate the deception.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> This has never been the case. For example, compare Intel i7 based laptop 
> machines from Apple and Dell. The Studio XPS with a similar display, 
> better graphics chip, faster memory, faster CPU, longer warranty, but 
> slightly smaller HDD is $900 less than the closest Mac Book. You can 
> never compare exact hardware, but you can come close. Apple is able to 
> charge a big premium over Windows based machine. This is good thing for 
> Apple, not a bad thing, but it's not something that can be denied.

but for "similar specs" macs and pcs are priced about the same... you 
somehow overlooked that well known fact. i think you might have got lost 
in cheapening everything up to make the mac look more expensive, but the 
OP said similar specs... so when you do that, macs and pcs are priced 
about the same. now you know!

In article 
<michelle-CD842E.18431907062010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <znu-E9A236.21241507062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the 
> > > > > > >> newly increased termination fee, just before verizon, sprint 
> > > > > > >> and t-mobile get the phone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's a possibility, but I think that if that happens, Apple 
> > > > > > > and AT&T will find themselves the subject of (another?) 
> > > > > > > investigation by the federal government.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why? Its a perfectly legitimate business practise. You want a 
> > > > > > cheaper phone upgrade NOW? Then pay down the line in an extended 
> > > > > > contract.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's perfectly legal and honest.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nope; it's deception by not revealing pertinent information, akin 
> > > > > in concept to insider trading.
> > > > 
> > > > That's silly. Companies have no obligation to announce future 
> > > > products or business relationships.
> > > 
> > > When it cons customers, they do.
> > 
> > There's no con here. You sign a two year contract, you get a two year 
> > contract.
> 
> The con would be in withholding relevant facts.  By itself AT&T wouldn't be 
> guilty of the con, but in conjunction with Apple, it would be involved in a 
> conspiracy.


Are you *really* claiming Apple and/or AT&T could be sued for not giving 
24 months' warning before the end of iPhone exclusivity? That simply has 
no relationship to reality. There is no requirement that companies 
disclose "relevant facts" about future business arrangements to their 
customers.

> Of course, this is all moot as I doubt that a Verizon iPhone will be 
> announced any time soon.  But if there is one, I'm sure that the feds will 
> investigate the deception.

If Apple or AT&T made affirmative statements that AT&T would maintain 
iPhone exclusivity through the rest of the contract, there might be some 
problem. But they haven't done that.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <4c0d9931$0$1633$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> True, but the margins on Macs are still much better than the margins on
> >> Windows PCs because Apple is able to charge considerably more for
> >> comparable hardware to those that prefer OS-X to Windows 7.
> >
> > false. for similar specs, prices are similar.
> 
> This has never been the case.

yes it has.

> For example, compare Intel i7 based laptop 
> machines from Apple and Dell. The Studio XPS with a similar display, 
> better graphics chip, faster memory, faster CPU, longer warranty, but 
> slightly smaller HDD is $900 less than the closest Mac Book. 

this one? 
<http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/laptop-studio-xps-16/pd.aspx?r
efid=laptop-studio-xps-16&s=dhs&cs=19>

although it has a core i7, it's clocked at 1.7 ghz, versus 2.66 on the
macbook pro. for the 1.73 ghz version, it's $300 more. it also comes
with windows home, not windows ultimate, so that's another $150. now
the difference is only $450. 

the dell also lacks firewire 800, backlit keyboard, multitouch
trackpad, optical audio in/out, the ilife suite and gets less than 4
hours on the standard battery.

the macbook pro is thinner and lighter in weight and can last 8-9 hours
per charge, so you'd need to add at least one extended (not standard)
battery for the dell, plus the inconvenience of swapping and additional
weight.

so no it's not equivalent.

> You can 
> never compare exact hardware, but you can come close. Apple is able to 
> charge a big premium over Windows based machine. This is good thing for 
> Apple, not a bad thing, but it's not something that can be denied.

it's easily disproven, time and time again.

> >> It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the
> >> AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new
> >> cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.
> >
> > why not wifi? it does 802.11n and is much faster than any 3g network
> > could ever hope to be.
> 
> Because it's a phone, and because AT&T's network is the core reason that 
> Android sales have been increasing at a faster rate than iPhone sales. 
> The new iPhone will help, but they have not addressed the huge untapped 
> market for iPhones in the U.S.--people that will not use AT&T.

except their sales keep going up.

In article
<michelle-CD842E.18431907062010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > There's no con here. You sign a two year contract, you get a two year 
> > contract.
> 
> The con would be in withholding relevant facts.

what relevant facts? nobody outside of apple and at&t know when the
exclusive is over, and at&t probably doesn't know what apple has
planned with verizon, sprint and t-mobile.

> By itself AT&T wouldn't be 
> guilty of the con, but in conjunction with Apple, it would be involved in a 
> conspiracy.

i'm no fan of at&t but this is not a conspiracy.

> Of course, this is all moot as I doubt that a Verizon iPhone will be 
> announced any time soon.  But if there is one, I'm sure that the feds will 
> investigate the deception.

next year at the latest, when lte is actually usable, but there's
always a possibility before then.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:34:41 -0400, Jim_Higgins <gordian238@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Oxford wrote:
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
>> evermore.


Whoopee fucking shit.  A new faster iphone.

breaks NO new ground, but DOES show previous owners just how
BADLY they got screwed.

Meh wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:34:41 -0400, Jim_Higgins <gordian238@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
>>> evermore.
> 
> 
> Whoopee fucking shit.  A new faster iphone.
> 
> breaks NO new ground, but DOES show previous owners just how
> BADLY they got screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Certainly sour grapes from the bottom of the toilet in your case.

-- 
Service Guarantees Citizenship

In article <070620101910530137%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > There's no con here. You sign a two year contract, you get a two 
> > > year contract.
> > 
> > The con would be in withholding relevant facts.
> 
> what relevant facts? nobody outside of apple and at&t know when the 
> exclusive is over, and at&t probably doesn't know what apple has planned 
> with verizon, sprint and t-mobile.

The hypotheses for this discussion is that they know, and that it would be 
soon.  This is a hypothetical discussion.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <znu-5B9592.22031407062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > The con would be in withholding relevant facts.  By itself AT&T 
> > wouldn't be guilty of the con, but in conjunction with Apple, it would 
> > be involved in a conspiracy.
> 
> Are you *really* claiming Apple and/or AT&T could be sued for not giving 
> 24 months' warning before the end of iPhone exclusivity?

No.  I haven't said anything about suing, nor did I postulate such a long 
time frame.  Here is the relevant part of the thread:

> > > > > > >> or they want to lock people into a 2 year contract with the 
> > > > > > >> newly increased termination fee, just before verizon, 
> > > > > > >> sprint and t-mobile get the phone.

Note the part that says "just before"?  And I'm not the one who wrote that; 
it's what I responded to.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

nospam wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:08:03 -0700]:
> In article <4c0d9931$0$1633$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> True, but the margins on Macs are still much better than the margins on
>> >> Windows PCs because Apple is able to charge considerably more for
>> >> comparable hardware to those that prefer OS-X to Windows 7.
>> >
>> > false. for similar specs, prices are similar.
>> 
>> This has never been the case.
>
> yes it has.
>
>> For example, compare Intel i7 based laptop 
>> machines from Apple and Dell. The Studio XPS with a similar display, 
>> better graphics chip, faster memory, faster CPU, longer warranty, but 
>> slightly smaller HDD is $900 less than the closest Mac Book. 
>
> this one? 
> <http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/laptop-studio-xps-16/pd.aspx?r
> efid=laptop-studio-xps-16&s=dhs&cs=19>
>
> although it has a core i7, it's clocked at 1.7 ghz, versus 2.66 on the
> macbook pro. for the 1.73 ghz version, it's $300 more. it also comes
> with windows home, not windows ultimate, so that's another $150. now
> the difference is only $450. 

Adding in $150 for windows ultimate proves you know you are wrong

In article <hukbqm$50n$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Adding in $150 for windows ultimate proves you know you are wrong

it does no such thing.  os x is comparable to windows ultimate, so to
make the dell equivalent, it must have ultimate.

Oxford wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:10:34 -0600]:
> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What Linux distro does it run?
>
> Nobody cares about Linux anymore, the iOS has now taken over all UNIX 
> based mobile devices... you can get up to speed here:

Except android, eh?

Oxford wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:05:09 -0600]:
> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Nobody cares about Linux anymore, 
>> 
>> Yes, they do. Buy a clue.
>
> sorry, i should have included "professional" in the sentence...
>
> no "professional" cares about Linux anymore...

That's funny, I am a professional and actually in IT and I care deeply about
Linux

> http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/

Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT

nospam wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:06:07 -0700]:
> In article <hukbqm$50n$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Adding in $150 for windows ultimate proves you know you are wrong
>
> it does no such thing.  os x is comparable to windows ultimate, so to
> make the dell equivalent, it must have ultimate.

Perhaps professional edition, ultimate only has 2 main differences above
professional and one of those is easily replaced with the better solution
of truecrypt.

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
> 
> Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT

thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, not 
Linux...

http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/it/

In article <hukd8d$vo5$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Perhaps professional edition, ultimate only has 2 main differences above
> professional and one of those is easily replaced with the better solution
> of truecrypt.

the comparison is between two similar computers as sold by their
respective manufacturers, not custom configurations with various third
party software to make up the difference.

and the other missing feature is 35 languages, something os x has
standard, and i think it's more than 35 but i can't find an exact
number.

however, it doesn't really matter. the major difference between the two
laptops is that the macbook is 50% faster and has over twice the
battery life.

Oxford wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:30:35 -0600]:
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
>> 
>> Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT
>
> thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, not 
> Linux...

Actually, the big boys use AIX, Solaris, Linux, BSD, Windows, many of which
are running on VMWare solutions.

On Jun 7, 11:30=A0pm, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > >http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
>
> > Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT
>
> thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, not
> Linux...
>
> http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/it/

Bwhahahahaahahaha

On Jun 7, 11:47=A0pm, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Oxford wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:30:35 -0600]:
>
> > Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
>
> >> Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT
>
> > thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, not
> > Linux...
>
> Actually, the big boys use AIX, Solaris, Linux, BSD, Windows, many of whi=
ch
> are running on VMWare solutions.

The big boys run anything BUT OS X.  OS X is a toy OS for consumption
devices only. No real computing is done on cheap chinese iCrap built
by slaves.

In article
<84800497-9786-49ab-aeb5-fc8960e56d17@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 7, 11:47=A0pm, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Oxford wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:30:35 -0600]:
> >
> > > Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
> >
> > >> Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT
> >
> > > thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, not
> > > Linux...
> >
> > Actually, the big boys use AIX, Solaris, Linux, BSD, Windows, many of whi=
> ch
> > are running on VMWare solutions.
> 
> The big boys run anything BUT OS X.  OS X is a toy OS for consumption
> devices only. No real computing is done on cheap chinese iCrap built
> by slaves.

Oh look, another brainless moron to add to the ignore file.  :-\

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:30:35 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> 
>> > http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
>> 
>> Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT
> 
> thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, not
> Linux...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/business/solutions/it/

The big boys:

<http://www.top500.org/stats/list/35/osfam>

-- 
Rick

In article <070620101620206138%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <michelle-632AEF.16061907062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > So, should I put it on eBay or Craig's list or where?
> 
> either one. they each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Wouldn't it get lost amongst all the advertisements for hookers on 
Craig's list?
-- 
Remove blown from email address to reply.

On Jun 8, 12:12=A0am, your.n...@isp.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article
> <84800497-9786-49ab-aeb5-fc8960e56...@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 11:47=3DA0pm, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > Oxford wrote on [Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:30:35 -0600]:
>
> > > > Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/
>
> > > >> Yeah, it's a real enterprise solution. NOT
>
> > > > thanks for the laugh... the big boys use OSX Server and Xserves, no=
t
> > > > Linux...
>
> > > Actually, the big boys use AIX, Solaris, Linux, BSD, Windows, many of=
 whi=3D
> > ch
> > > are running on VMWare solutions.
>
> > The big boys run anything BUT OS X. =A0OS X is a toy OS for consumption
> > devices only. No real computing is done on cheap chinese iCrap built
> > by slaves.
>
> Oh look, another brainless moron to add to the ignore file. =A0:-\

Thank God. Now go die in a fire cult member!

In article <tkettler-A0622E.01154908062010@news.eternal-september.org>,
Thomas R. Kettler <tkettler@blownfuse.net> wrote:

> Wouldn't it get lost amongst all the advertisements for hookers on 
> Craig's list?

different section, so no.

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
news:apony-540871.15061307062010@news.qwest.net...
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore....


That is, when the network actually works!  ;-)

"D. Stussy" <spam+newsgroups@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:

> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> > evermore....
> 
> That is, when the network actually works!  ;-)

yeah, that was funny... goes to show if you put 570 base stations in 
room, throw in 5,000 data hungry people the demo gods come out to play :)

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message
news:apony-75D58C.15265607062010@news.qwest.net...
>
> no edwin, you are wrong as usual...

No surprises there ... it's just another anti-Apple nutter who has no idea
what they're talking about.  :-\

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

> In article <slrni0qv7q.8f.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>,
>  Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-07, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better 
>> >> > version a
>> >> > short time later.
>> >> 
>> >> like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.
>> >
>> > but now that Apple is engineering their own smartphone processors, Apple 
>> > will always have the fastest phone from here on out... that's the 
>> > difference of what happened today..
>> 
>> Hardly.  The A4 includes a single core 1GHz ARM processor, if it is
>> the same one as in the iPad.  The Qualcomm QSD8672 chipset (the
>> CDMA+3G one) includes a dual-core 1.5GHz Snapdragon ARM processor
>> and is used by the HTC Scorpion, which should be available before
>> the iPhone 4 is more than a couple of months old.
>> 
>> I suspect speed isn't the point of the A4, though.  I'll bet the
>> HTC Scorpion is a much thicker phone with a bigger battery and
>> shorter battery life.  The new iPhone is built with almost no
>> parts.
>> 
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> A lot of the perceived speed of the iOS devices is actually software 
> optimization. Being able to use a more power efficient processor and 
> still deliver good performance via carefully tailored software is one of 
> the benefits Apple derives from building the "whole widget".


Exactly. One of the biggest gripes in Android land, other than
fragmentation, is that half the market apps are simply poorly programmed
and suck the battery dry as a result. The applications do all sorts of
naive and ignorant approaches to net access for example which are
totally against the design recomendations. Not Google's fault per se,
but an irritant to us Android users nonetheless.

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:07:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>>>> evermore.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> What Linux distro does it run?
>> 
>> Don't be such a prissy little dick all your life Rick. What Linux kernel
>> does Windows run?
>
> Another fine example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux 
> Advocate Quark. </sarcasm>

It is. You and advocates are constantly talking about Windows. At least
what they are discussing is seeded in IX land.

>
> Many of us are tired of fanboi Oxford and his incessant Apple 
> cheerleading.

Ask Dumb Willy Poaster how to operate a killfile or scoring mechanism in
your news reader. Its not rocket science.

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>
>> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
>>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>> > > you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>> > > iPhone every year...
>>> > 
>>> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
>>> > foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
>>> > whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to
>>> > 12 months before the end of the contract.
>>> > 
>>> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>>> > upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>>> 
>>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay
>>> and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>>> 
>>> it's a no brainer...
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
>> 
>> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock
>> people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know something
>> about iPhone exclusivity running out.
>
> ... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them for 2 
> years. If you don't they may jump sooner.


You clearly dont know how it works. It works like this in Europe
too. The *advantage* is you get a REAL cheap handset and a good monthly
unlimited data plan. Who can blame them for insisting you stay with them
for a period of time? And 2 years is fine. A good length of time for the
ever more disposable "model of the day" that is becoming even more
apparent in Android land. At least with Apple you know your phone will
be upgraded and not at the whim of one of however many independent HW
manufacturers.

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message 
news:apony-540871.15061307062010@news.qwest.net...
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore.
>
> Wow... just Wow!
>
> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>
> Take a look at the engineering:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>
> Here are the full features:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>
> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>
> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>
> http://developer.apple.com/
>
> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>
> -
>
> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>
> enjoy!

Yawn 

SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The best part of Jobs speech this morning was when the demo of the
> iPhone 4 wasn't working...
>
> "I'm sorry guys, I don't know what's going on," he said to the crowd of
> developers and media. "Got any suggestions?" he asked. Someone from the
> back helpfully shouted, "Verizon!" Though the crowd laughed, Jobs took
> it in stride. He said simply, "We're actually on Wi-Fi here."
>
> It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the
> AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new
> cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.

I think that's reading a bit too much into it.

Jobs demoed  'facetime', which is (currently) limited to being WiFi
only.

Also, since these sorts of big media events tend to saturate whatever
wireless is available, it makes sense that as the presenter, Apple
would have had their own locked-down private channel for their
exclusive use on stage.  Its a lot easier to do that with WiFi than
with a cellular repeater.

And, as of the last time I looked, a lot cheaper too:  roughly $100 vs
$10,000 for the hardware.


-hh

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:20:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:07:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4
>>>>> blew away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing
>>>>> for evermore.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> What Linux distro does it run?
>>> 
>>> Don't be such a prissy little dick all your life Rick. What Linux
>>> kernel does Windows run?
>>
>> Another fine example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.
>> </sarcasm>
> 
> It is.

No, it isn't.

> You and advocates are constantly talking about Windows. At least
> what they are discussing is seeded in IX land.

I don't have any advocates.

> 
> 
>> Many of us are tired of fanboi Oxford and his incessant Apple
>> cheerleading.
> 
> Ask Dumb Willy Poaster how to operate a killfile or scoring mechanism in
> your news reader. Its not rocket science.

... and why is it you can't operate one?

-- 
Rick

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:22:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
>>>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>>> > > you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>>> > > iPhone every year...
>>>> > 
>>>> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
>>>> > foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
>>>> > whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six
>>>> > to 12 months before the end of the contract.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>>>> > upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>>>> 
>>>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>>>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on
>>>> ebay and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>>>> 
>>>> it's a no brainer...
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
>>> 
>>> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock
>>> people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know
>>> something about iPhone exclusivity running out.
>>
>> ... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them for
>> 2 years. If you don't they may jump sooner.
> 
> 
> You clearly don't know how it works.

You clearly don't know how it works.

> It works like this in Europe too.
> The *advantage* is you get a REAL cheap handset and a good monthly
> unlimited data plan.

.... hmmm.. unlimited data plan ... no longer available. 

> Who can blame them for insisting you stay with them
> for a period of time? 

I can. And do.

> And 2 years is fine. 

I don't think so.

> A good length of time for the
> ever more disposable "model of the day" that is becoming even more
> apparent in Android land.

That would be the land that is rapidly catching up to the iPhone.

> At least with Apple you know your phone will
> be upgraded and not at the whim of one of however many independent HW
> manufacturers.

It will be at the whim of Apple.

Another fine piece of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.

-- 
Rick

On Jun 7, 6:00=A0pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:29:30 -0700 (PDT), -hh wrote:
> > whiny little Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> [before newsgroup trimming], Oxford wrote:
> >>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 ...
>
> >> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you =
into
> >> a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone every
> >> year...
>
> > Looks like the ETF has been changed this time, Edwin. =A0Better go look
> > it up to get the facts.
>
> > (not that you are one, but) =A0Current AT&T customers can check at
> >http://wireless.att.comby clicking on "Check Upgrade Options" after
> > they log in.
>
> > -hh
>
> I've already addressed that.

No you haven't.   Its been thrown in your face by others.


>=A0It only applies to those who's contract expires in 2010, which doesn't
> cover those who bought a new iPhone a year or less ago.

Are you willing to bet your life on that claim?

There's "Upgrade Eligible", and then there's "Early Upgrade".  As
such, even iPhone customers who bought a 3GS last week have an upgrade
option that doesn't contain the Early Termination Fee.


-hh


PS: in regards to the various conspiracy theories of long term lock-in
due to AT&T's raising of their ETF in May, it seems that people have
conveniently forgotten that Verizon raised their ETF to $350...back in
January.

Hey, that's before AT&T did...do does this then mean that there's a
counter-conspiracy-theory that says that VZW's motives were to try to
lock in customers before the iPhone rumors started, to try to prevent
even more defections?

In article 
<apony-DA09BB.19050907062010@n003-000-000-000.static.ge.com>,
 Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > Nobody cares about Linux anymore, 
> > 
> > Yes, they do. Buy a clue.
> 
> sorry, i should have included "professional" in the sentence...
> 
> no "professional" cares about Linux anymore...

....other than, say, Google....right?

I wonder what the mix of Mac OS to Linux is on the Google campus...

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:20:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:07:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4
>>>>>> blew away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing
>>>>>> for evermore.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> What Linux distro does it run?
>>>> 
>>>> Don't be such a prissy little dick all your life Rick. What Linux
>>>> kernel does Windows run?
>>>
>>> Another fine example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.
>>> </sarcasm>
>> 
>> It is.
>
> No, it isn't.

I see you're in top form today Rick. Razor sharp as ever! LOL.

>
>> You and advocates are constantly talking about Windows. At least
>> what they are discussing is seeded in IX land.
>
> I don't have any advocates.

I never said you did Rick. Obviously I mean 'you and the
"advocates"'. Well it seemed obvious enough to me. Clearly not for
you. I hope that clarified it for a little. If not dont be too shy to
ask. We ARE here to help you Rick.

>
>> 
>> 
>>> Many of us are tired of fanboi Oxford and his incessant Apple
>>> cheerleading.
>> 
>> Ask Dumb Willy Poaster how to operate a killfile or scoring mechanism in
>> your news reader. Its not rocket science.
>
> .. and why is it you can't operate one?

I can Rick. And very very well. Hint : I use Gnus. Go read up about it.

I tend not to killfile en mass. Its the sign of a coward.

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:22:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
>>>>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>>>> > > you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>>>> > > iPhone every year...
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
>>>>> > foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
>>>>> > whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six
>>>>> > to 12 months before the end of the contract.
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>>>>> > upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>>>>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on
>>>>> ebay and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>>>>> 
>>>>> it's a no brainer...
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
>>>> 
>>>> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock
>>>> people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know
>>>> something about iPhone exclusivity running out.
>>>
>>> ... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them for
>>> 2 years. If you don't they may jump sooner.
>> 
>> 
>> You clearly don't know how it works.
>
> You clearly don't know how it works.

Huh? I even described it to you below ... Are you really so lame as to
just rebound statements with no understanding? 

>
>> It works like this in Europe too.
>> The *advantage* is you get a REAL cheap handset and a good monthly
>> unlimited data plan.
>
> ... hmmm.. unlimited data plan ... no longer available. 

Do you know how much phones cost?

>
>> Who can blame them for insisting you stay with them
>> for a period of time? 
>
> I can. And do.
>

Of course. You are a freetard. Dont join them then!

>> And 2 years is fine. 
>
> I don't think so.
>

But we expect that as you don't have a clue though Rick. Market forces old bean.

>> A good length of time for the
>> ever more disposable "model of the day" that is becoming even more
>> apparent in Android land.
>
> That would be the land that is rapidly catching up to the iPhone.

No Rick. I said "model of the day". Nothing about Android in general. Do
TRY to understand.

>
>> At least with Apple you know your phone will
>> be upgraded and not at the whim of one of however many independent HW
>> manufacturers.
>
> It will be at the whim of Apple.

Yes and we know what a poor track record they have eh Rick? You sad,
bitter little man.

>
> Another fine piece of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.

What are you talking about Rick? Did you take the wrong meds today?

In message news:apony-540871.15061307062010@news.qwest.net, Oxford 
<apony@pasture.com> said:

> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
> evermore.

Turn-by-turn GPS without paying extra for TomTom or Navigon?  NOPE

"Today At A Glance" on lockscreen without jailbreaking?  NOPE

Over-The-Air sync?  NOPE

All the new features seem focused on whiz-bang video at the expense of 
practical enhancements specifically requested by the customer community.

I'll keep my 3GS.

"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote 
news:1xfvcr9qeju7m$.167qukea2ak4u$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:20:00 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> jerryeveretts wrote:
>>
>>>Hello Oxford, long time no.... well... no arguing.. good to see  you
>>>back here friend!
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> You still have people left to "plonk?"   It seems you've already plonked
> everybody on Usenet at least twice...
>

*PLONK*
--
/C/ircumscriptly
/H/ard-bitten.
/R/ug-headed and
/I/ncapably
/S/kin-headed
/V/agabond. 

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:02:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
>> In article <slrni0qv7q.8f.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>,
>>  Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-06-07, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>>> > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better 
>>> >> > version a
>>> >> > short time later.
>>> >> 
>>> >> like hell they don't. there are new phones coming out all the time.
>>> >
>>> > but now that Apple is engineering their own smartphone processors, Apple 
>>> > will always have the fastest phone from here on out... that's the 
>>> > difference of what happened today..
>>> 
>>> Hardly.  The A4 includes a single core 1GHz ARM processor, if it is
>>> the same one as in the iPad.  The Qualcomm QSD8672 chipset (the
>>> CDMA+3G one) includes a dual-core 1.5GHz Snapdragon ARM processor
>>> and is used by the HTC Scorpion, which should be available before
>>> the iPhone 4 is more than a couple of months old.
>>> 
>>> I suspect speed isn't the point of the A4, though.  I'll bet the
>>> HTC Scorpion is a much thicker phone with a bigger battery and
>>> shorter battery life.  The new iPhone is built with almost no
>>> parts.
>>> 
>>> Dennis Ferguson
>>
>> A lot of the perceived speed of the iOS devices is actually software 
>> optimization. Being able to use a more power efficient processor and 
>> still deliver good performance via carefully tailored software is one of 
>> the benefits Apple derives from building the "whole widget".
> 
> 
> Exactly. One of the biggest gripes in Android land, other than
> fragmentation, is that half the market apps are simply poorly programmed
> and suck the battery dry as a result. The applications do all sorts of
> naive and ignorant approaches to net access for example which are
> totally against the design recomendations. Not Google's fault per se,
> but an irritant to us Android users nonetheless.

I see you've finally had to give up beating the "OpenMoko failed" drum and
switch to anti-Android FUD...

.... one thing is certain... 

.... if Hadron is against Android it's the stuff you want...

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:45:28 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in December 
>>> 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to get the 
>>> iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
>> 
>> Prove it.
> 
> i just dialed *639# - with an iPhone 3GS bought 11 months ago, the extra 
> cost to upgrade to the iPhone 4:
> 
> $18
> 
> so edwin, please quit being a moron...

The definition of "moron" is believing anything posted by "Oxford."

Personal pronouns should be capitalized.   That's a small part of the
education you missed out on.   You're welcome.


-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On 07/06/10 10:35 PM, D. Stussy wrote:
> "Oxford"<apony@pasture.com>  wrote in message
> news:apony-540871.15061307062010@news.qwest.net...
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> evermore....
>
>
> That is, when the network actually works!  ;-)

Can you imagine if they had actually tried to use the AT&T 3G network 
rather than Wi-Fi, especially in San Francisco! He'd still be talking now.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:55:26 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <khm8rhxalhzj.rhfdg4pigsur$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish?  
>> 
>> Only when I'm trying to impersonate you.
> 
> If you succeeded in impersonating me, you wouldn't look foolish.

See what I mean?

>>> AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade date 
>>> is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the end 
>>> of the contract.
>> 
>> So what does that do for the people who bought iPhones a month or two ago?
> 
> They have to wait unless they want to pay a higher price.  

Well, duh!   Did you finally catch on... probably not...

> Just like if 
> they had bought an Android phone from any wireless provider.

Which Android phone had same level as upgrades as the new iPhone did?

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On 08/06/10 3:53 AM, -hh wrote:
> SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> The best part of Jobs speech this morning was when the demo of the
>> iPhone 4 wasn't working...
>>
>> "I'm sorry guys, I don't know what's going on," he said to the crowd of
>> developers and media. "Got any suggestions?" he asked. Someone from the
>> back helpfully shouted, "Verizon!" Though the crowd laughed, Jobs took
>> it in stride. He said simply, "We're actually on Wi-Fi here."
>>
>> It was funny, but if you read between the lines it says a lot about the
>> AT&T network in San Francisco that they felt compelled to demo their new
>> cell phone on a wi-fi network rather than the 3G network.
>
> I think that's reading a bit too much into it.
>
> Jobs demoed  'facetime', which is (currently) limited to being WiFi
> only.

Exactly. But everyone with a web cam on their laptop already has the 
ability to do "FaceTime" type conversations when they're connected to a 
WiFi (or wired) network. The whole point of FaceTime is being able to 
use it on the AT&T 3G network.

> Also, since these sorts of big media events tend to saturate whatever
> wireless is available, it makes sense that as the presenter, Apple
> would have had their own locked-down private channel for their
> exclusive use on stage.  Its a lot easier to do that with WiFi than
> with a cellular repeater.

Apparently not, judging from what happened yesterday.

> And, as of the last time I looked, a lot cheaper too:  roughly $100 vs
> $10,000 for the hardware.

Apple can afford it. AT&T would probably have built a new tower just for 
the event, since their whole business model is now essentially built 
around one phone.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:40:39 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in December 
>>> 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to get the 
>>> iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
>> 
>> Prove it.
> 
> this will help you learn:
> 
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/07/how_to_tell_if_youre_eligib
> le_for_atts_iphone_4_upgrade_pricing.html

I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider.   Thanks anyway.


-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

In article <z9ejy2a8jlu8$.5txd1o73td4w.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> >>> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish? 
> >>>  
> >> 
> >> Only when I'm trying to impersonate you.
> > 
> > If you succeeded in impersonating me, you wouldn't look foolish.
> 
> See what I mean?

yeah, you tried to impersonate me, failed at it, and looked foolish.

> >>> AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade 
> >>> date 
> >>> is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the 
> >>> end 
> >>> of the contract.
> >> 
> >> So what does that do for the people who bought iPhones a month or two ago?
> > 
> > They have to wait unless they want to pay a higher price.  
> 
> Well, duh!   Did you finally catch on... probably not...

Oh, I caught on; you like making a fool of yourself.

> > Just like if they had bought an Android phone from any wireless 
> > provider.
> 
> Which Android phone had same level as upgrades as the new iPhone did?

Poor comparison; most Android manufacturers don't upgrade their phones, but 
rather replace them with different models.  And most Android models haven't 
been out for even a year yet.

But that begs the issue; if someone bought an Android device, and it was 
discontinued and replaced with another one two months later, they would 
have to wait or pay a higher price.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <1a2mtjory5kje$.piq1mu0mgrky$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider.   Thanks anyway.

yeah, you've demonstrated that you ignore facts that dispute your beliefs, 
if you really actually do believe the BS you spew.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <4c0e4dba$0$1618$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Exactly. But everyone with a web cam on their laptop already has the 
> ability to do "FaceTime" type conversations when they're connected to a 
> WiFi (or wired) network. The whole point of FaceTime is being able to 
> use it on the AT&T 3G network.

Er no; Jobs said that right now, and for the foreseeable future, Facetime 
is limited to WiFi networks, and will not run on 3G networks.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

SMS wrote on [Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:03:30 -0700]:
> On 08/06/10 3:53 AM, -hh wrote:
>
>> And, as of the last time I looked, a lot cheaper too:  roughly $100 vs
>> $10,000 for the hardware.
>
> Apple can afford it. AT&T would probably have built a new tower just for 
> the event, since their whole business model is now essentially built 
> around one phone.

They don't have to build anything, just roll in their mobile towers.

Michelle Steiner wrote on [Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:28:34 -0700]:
> In article <z9ejy2a8jlu8$.5txd1o73td4w.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> Poor comparison; most Android manufacturers don't upgrade their phones, but 
> rather replace them with different models.  And most Android models haven't 
> been out for even a year yet.

Let's see, the Nexus one is currently upgrading from 2.1 to 2.2. The Droid
has been upgraded from 2.0 to 2.1, 2.2 later this year. HTC will be updating
to 2.2. 

> But that begs the issue; if someone bought an Android device, and it was 
> discontinued and replaced with another one two months later, they would 
> have to wait or pay a higher price.

Depends on the network. Verizon users can upgrade every 12 months.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:201006081354.o58DsdR05059@smtp.cobalt.loc...
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote 
> news:1xfvcr9qeju7m$.167qukea2ak4u$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:20:00 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> jerryeveretts wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello Oxford, long time no.... well... no arguing.. good to see  you
>>>>back here friend!
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> You still have people left to "plonk?"   It seems you've already plonked
>> everybody on Usenet at least twice...
>>
>
> *PLONK*
> --
> /C/ircumscriptly
> /H/ard-bitten.
> /R/ug-headed and
> /I/ncapably
> /S/kin-headed
> /V/agabond.

chrisv is a piece of shit. chrisv is a liar.

Rick stated in post n-mdnSscG4y0v5PRnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@supernews.com on 6/8/10
3:57 AM:

>>> Another fine example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.
>>> </sarcasm>
>> 
>> It is.
> 
> No, it isn't.

What fine advocacy from Rick!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"KDT" <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e891a8e5-bfb6-46b0-9a15-a6aab9b67a2b@h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 5:35 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
> > other carrier?
>
> They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better version
> a
> short time later.
>

So you mean other phone manufacturers will *never* sell a better phone
than they are selling right now?  Apple releases a new phone like
clockwork once a year in June.

Yes, and Apple releases a "new" HAR!!, OS every four months.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:28:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <z9ejy2a8jlu8$.5txd1o73td4w.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look foolish? 
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Only when I'm trying to impersonate you.
>>> 
>>> If you succeeded in impersonating me, you wouldn't look foolish.
>> 
>> See what I mean?
> 
> yeah, you tried to impersonate me, failed at it, and looked foolish.

The degree I appear foolish is the degree of success I've had impersonating
you.

>>>>> AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone whose upgrade 
>>>>> date 
>>>>> is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to 12 months before the 
>>>>> end 
>>>>> of the contract.
>>>> 
>>>> So what does that do for the people who bought iPhones a month or two ago?
>>> 
>>> They have to wait unless they want to pay a higher price.  
>> 
>> Well, duh!   Did you finally catch on... probably not...
> 
> Oh, I caught on; you like making a fool of yourself.

I made a real "Michelle Steiner" out of myself.

>>> Just like if they had bought an Android phone from any wireless 
>>> provider.
>> 
>> Which Android phone had same level as upgrades as the new iPhone did?
> 
> Poor comparison; 

It's the comparison you imposed.

> most Android manufacturers don't upgrade their phones, but 
> rather replace them with different models.  And most Android models haven't 
> been out for even a year yet.

IOW, you're retracting your assertion: "Just like if they had bought an
Android phone from any wireless provider."

> But that begs the issue; if someone bought an Android device, and it was 
> discontinued and replaced with another one two months later, they would 
> have to wait or pay a higher price.

IOW, you're just making stuff up to apologize for Apple.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

Edwin wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> evermore.
>>
>> Wow... just Wow!
>>
>> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>>
>> Take a look at the engineering:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>>
>> Here are the full features:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>>
>> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>>
>> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
>> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>>
>> http://developer.apple.com/
>>
>> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
>> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>>
>> -
>>
>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>
>> enjoy!
>
> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks you
> into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved iPhone
> every year...
>
Stop exaggerating. Apple brings out an iPhone and then brings out the
IMPROVED version in 3 months. THEN they bring out a NEW version every year.

Edwin wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:
>
>> On Jun 7, 5:21 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4
>>>> blew away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing
>>>> for evermore.
>>>
>>>> Wow... just Wow!
>>>
>>>> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>>>
>>>> Take a look at the engineering:
>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>>>
>>>> Here are the full features:
>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>>>
>>>> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>>>
>>>> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what
>>>> is being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>>>
>>>> http://developer.apple.com/
>>>
>>>> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
>>>> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>>>
>>>> -
>>>
>>>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>>
>>>> enjoy!
>>>
>>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>> you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>> iPhone every year...
>>>
>>> --
>>> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" -- Alan Baker
>>
>> How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
>> other carrier?
>
> They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better
> version a short time later.
>
I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly sold
(and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few months, sticking it
to those buyers. I don't recall them making it up to them in any way.

On Jun 8, 11:37=A0am, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:

> I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
> introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly sold
> (and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few months, sticking=
 it
> to those buyers. I don't recall them making it up to them in any way.

1. So you mean other technology doesn't get a price reduction?  Isn't
the very reason that PC manufacturers don't like to hold inventory
because the value of the technology declines something like 3% every
month?

2. Apple gave early iPhone buyers are $100 gift card.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:46:42 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <1o2fnnyiyttts$.xw6y37sdnls1$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in 
>>> December 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them to 
>>> get the iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
>> 
>> Prove it.
> 
> It's right in AT&T's press releases.  Do you want me to prove that the sun 
> shines in the daytime too?

Your lack of proof is noted... and it was completely expected.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

Carl wrote on [Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:37:31 -0400]:
> Edwin wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 5:21 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4
>>>>> blew away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing
>>>>> for evermore.
>>>>
>>>>> Wow... just Wow!
>>>>
>>>>> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>>>>
>>>>> Take a look at the engineering:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>>>>
>>>>> Here are the full features:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>>>>
>>>>> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>>>>
>>>>> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what
>>>>> is being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>>>>
>>>>> http://developer.apple.com/
>>>>
>>>>> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
>>>>> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>>>
>>>>> enjoy!
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>>> you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>>> iPhone every year...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" -- Alan Baker
>>>
>>> How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
>>> other carrier?
>>
>> They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better
>> version a short time later.
>>
> I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
> introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly sold
> (and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few months, sticking it
> to those buyers. I don't recall them making it up to them in any way.

They also dropped the price of the more expensive model to the same price
as the less expensive one they killed, and gave a 50% difference in the form
of an itunes gift card.

On 6/7/2010 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> evermore.
>
> Wow... just Wow!
>
> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>
> Take a look at the engineering:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>
> Here are the full features:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>
> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>
> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>
> http://developer.apple.com/
>
> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#overla
> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>
> -
>
> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>
> enjoy!

      What? No 4G? The EVO has 4G and is the first phone to do 
so. That's innovation and it was available on June 4th. Seems 
Apple is slipping again.

John

John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>       What? No 4G? The EVO has 4G and is the first phone to do 
> so. That's innovation and it was available on June 4th. Seems 
> Apple is slipping again.

not sure what you mean John, 4G isn't widely available, so a popular 
company like Apple can't deploy it yet... you are thinking of small 
companies, in a few cities, with tiny market share.

so it's not about innovation, it's about practicality.

On 08/06/10 10:03 AM, John Slade wrote:

> What? No 4G? The EVO has 4G and is the first phone to do so. That's
> innovation and it was available on June 4th. Seems Apple is slipping again.

Be patient. The Verizon iPhone will almost certainly be 4G, but LTE is 
just starting to be deployed by Verizon, and is 2-3 years away for AT&T. 
Sprint's 4G WiMax network is the most available, but I don't think Apple 
will bother with a WiMax iPhone given Sprint's declining market share.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:45:16 -0400, Jim_Higgins <gordian238@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Meh wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:34:41 -0400, Jim_Higgins <gordian238@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Oxford wrote:
>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew 
>>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for 
>>>> evermore.
>> 
>> 
>> Whoopee fucking shit.  A new faster iphone.
>> 
>> breaks NO new ground, but DOES show previous owners just how
>> BADLY they got screwed.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>Certainly sour grapes from the bottom of the toilet in your case.

Sour grapes?  From someone who has NO desire or intention, 
OR NEED, for an iPhone?

DAMN, you're stupid, AND prejudiced.

In article <vJuPn.46293$Ak3.11738@newsfe16.iad>, John Slade
<hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

>       What? No 4G? The EVO has 4G and is the first phone to do 
> so. 

except that sprint's 4g is different than what everyone else will be
using, not widely deployed yet (and sprint will ultimately switch to
lte like the rest), and not much faster in real world use according to
the reviews.

> That's innovation and it was available on June 4th. Seems 
> Apple is slipping again.

nope.

In article <070620102034572763%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <hukd8d$vo5$3@news.eternal-september.org>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps professional edition, ultimate only has 2 main differences above
> > professional and one of those is easily replaced with the better solution
> > of truecrypt.
> 
> the comparison is between two similar computers as sold by their
> respective manufacturers, not custom configurations with various third
> party software to make up the difference.
> 
> and the other missing feature is 35 languages, something os x has
> standard, and i think it's more than 35 but i can't find an exact
> number.
> 
> however, it doesn't really matter. the major difference between the two
> laptops is that the macbook is 50% faster and has over twice the
> battery life.

And lighter. That costs.

-- 
 A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> writes:

> In article <4c0e4dba$0$1618$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly. But everyone with a web cam on their laptop already has the 
>> ability to do "FaceTime" type conversations when they're connected to a 
>> WiFi (or wired) network. The whole point of FaceTime is being able to 
>> use it on the AT&T 3G network.
>
> Er no; Jobs said that right now, and for the foreseeable future, Facetime 
> is limited to WiFi networks, and will not run on 3G networks.

Might be that the *real* motivation behind this is to prepare for the
future. Once the networks are fast enough and Apple has sucked all money
they can get from the carriers, they can start to be their own carrier
on top of that. All of this is built around VoiceIP and sooner or later
the carriers will transfer nothing but data. Would be typical for Apple
to try and get their own thing into place instead of relying on others
for that. 

BTW, Skype will hate FaceTime. BTW2, is FaceTime encrypted and if it is,
how? Any way to wiretap into it for the usual suspects? If you can chat
point-to-point over the net from one side of the world to the other,
some people are not going to like that.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

On 08/06/10 1:19 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:

> Might be that the *real* motivation behind this is to prepare for the
> future. Once the networks are fast enough and Apple has sucked all money
> they can get from the carriers, they can start to be their own carrier
> on top of that.

In many locations AT&T is fast enough now for FaceTime to work, but 
_not_ if it becomes widely used, which has been AT&T's problem with the 
iPhone from the start.

Notice the new iPhone rate plans from AT&T and the loss of the unlimited 
data plan for new customers. No doubt AT&T is concerned, and rightly so, 
about the new generation of smart phones with their high resolution 
cameras. 2GB a month goes fast when you start sending even JPEG stills 
from a 5MP sensor, and six minutes of 720P video should be about 1GB.

> BTW, Skype will hate FaceTime. BTW2, is FaceTime encrypted and if it is,
> how? Any way to wiretap into it for the usual suspects? If you can chat
> point-to-point over the net from one side of the world to the other,
> some people are not going to like that.

You can do that now on a netbook with a 3G card. FaceTime just brings it 
to a phone, first to WiFi, later to 3G. It'll be a bandwidth hog, so 
it's a good thing AT&T stopped their unlimited data plan.

In article <10goq3mtidgfj$.snuo5qr7t2g4.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> >>> People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in 
> >>> December 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them 
> >>> to get the iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
> >> 
> >> Prove it.
> > 
> > It's right in AT&T's press releases.  Do you want me to prove that the 
> > sun shines in the daytime too?
> 
> Your lack of proof is noted... and it was completely expected.

You doubt the veracity of AT&T's press release?  That's your problem, not 
mine, bigotboi.

Oh, speaking of the sun shining, get your head out of that place where it 
doesn't shine.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

In article <1hwgssh3772lj.la1v4ap11rgx.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > most Android manufacturers don't upgrade their phones, but rather 
> > replace them with different models.  And most Android models haven't 
> > been out for even a year yet.
> 
> IOW, you're retracting your assertion: "Just like if they had bought an 
> Android phone from any wireless provider."

Not at all.  If they bought an Android model, and want to buy another 
Android phone, they have to pay a lot or wait until they're eligible for a 
fully subsidized phone.

Thanks for proving yet again that you don't know what you're talking about.

> > But that begs the issue; if someone bought an Android device, and it was 
> > discontinued and replaced with another one two months later, they would 
> > have to wait or pay a higher price.
> 
> IOW, you're just making stuff up to apologize for Apple.

IOW, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

On 10-06-07 17:06 , Oxford wrote:
> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new

excuse me.  Could you rewrite all that.  I was barfing at your pathetic 
fanaticaboism and couldn't read the rest.

-- 
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On Jun 8, 1:03=A0pm, John Slade <hhitma...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 6/7/2010 2:06 PM, Oxford wrote:
>
>
>
> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> > evermore.
>
> > Wow... just Wow!
>
> > You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>
> > Take a look at the engineering:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>
> > Here are the full features:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>
> > Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>
> > Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what is
> > being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>
> >http://developer.apple.com/
>
> > and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>
> >http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
> > y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>
> > -
>
> > okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>
> > enjoy!
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 What? No 4G? The EVO has 4G and is the first phone to do
> so. That's innovation and it was available on June 4th. Seems
> Apple is slipping again.
>
> John

Your ignorance continues to surprise me (no not really).

The iPhone 4 supports HSDPA/HSUPA the GSM worldwide standard that is
faster than Sprints/ClearWire 's proprietary standard that's only in
25 cities.

Michelle Steiner pulled this Usenet boner:

<snipped>

You need to add a little wisp of steam to your X-Face!

Or is that too reminiscent of Java?  :-)

-- 
You never gain something but that you lose something.
		-- Thoreau

Carl wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 5:21 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4
>>>>> blew away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing
>>>>> for evermore.
>>>>> Wow... just Wow!
>>>>> You can start to learn what just happened with this video...
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/index.html#design-video
>>>>> Take a look at the engineering:
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/
>>>>> Here are the full features:
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/
>>>>> Then take a look at the incredible specs:
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html
>>>>> Apple has now sent $1 Billion to App developers, so to learn what
>>>>> is being made and join in the huge gold mine, go here:
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/
>>>>> http://developer.apple.com/
>>>>> and kinda fun... true developer stories:
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/developer-stories.html#ov...
>>>>> y-developerstories-behindtheapps
>>>>> -
>>>>> okay, that's enough for now, price for iPhone 4 is $199, or 3GS $99
>>>>> enjoy!
>>>> Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
>>>> you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
>>>> iPhone every year...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" -- Alan Baker
>>> How is this different from every other phone manufacturer and every
>>> other carrier?
>> They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing a better
>> version a short time later.
>>
> I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
> introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly sold
> (and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few months, sticking it
> to those buyers. I don't recall them making it up to them in any way.
> 

There is always some risk in being a early adopter!

In article 
<michelle-BDE4BE.14414708062010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > IOW, you're just making stuff up to apologize for Apple.
> 
> IOW, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

And with that, I'm putting all messages crosspost to *.advocacy back into 
my kill file.

-- 
Check out the Hot Cocoa Party
<http://www.hotcocoaparty.info>

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:

> On 08/06/10 1:19 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>
>> Might be that the *real* motivation behind this is to prepare for the
>> future. Once the networks are fast enough and Apple has sucked all money
>> they can get from the carriers, they can start to be their own carrier
>> on top of that.
>
> In many locations AT&T is fast enough now for FaceTime to work, but
> _not_ if it becomes widely used, which has been AT&T's problem with the
> iPhone from the start.

Well, Apple already sells half of all iPhones elsewhere than in the US
and for international calls many people will see this as the best thing
since sliced bread. Roaming is expensive.

> Notice the new iPhone rate plans from AT&T and the loss of the unlimited
> data plan for new customers. No doubt AT&T is concerned, and rightly so,
> about the new generation of smart phones with their high resolution
> cameras.

Yes, no doubt about that. The iPhone has been a very mixed gift for AT&T
anyway, that thing has always generated huge amounts of traffic and this
is only the beginning.

>> BTW, Skype will hate FaceTime. BTW2, is FaceTime encrypted and if it is,
>> how? Any way to wiretap into it for the usual suspects? If you can chat
>> point-to-point over the net from one side of the world to the other,
>> some people are not going to like that.
>
> You can do that now on a netbook with a 3G card. FaceTime just brings it
> to a phone, first to WiFi, later to 3G. It'll be a bandwidth hog, so
> it's a good thing AT&T stopped their unlimited data plan.

Apple plans to sell millions of these things just this year. It's not
only "to a phone", it's "into the hands of the masses". The carriers
will have to struggle to keep up with that. The problem in the US is
that there is no free market as far as the iPhone is concerned and AT&T
doing a good job while offering fair prices would be believing in
miracles...

I'm really curious if the WiFi-only restriction will be the same in
other countries. 3G bandwidth is rather cheap elsewhere.


        Jochem

-- 
 "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no 
 longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
> > evermore.
> 
> excuse me.  Could you rewrite all that.  I was barfing at your pathetic 
> fanaticaboism and couldn't read the rest.

Ah, there wasn't any fanboyism, it was doubled checked to be sure it was 
only the truth.

why are you so against the best very products? that seems odd...

On 10-06-08 19:55 , Oxford wrote:
> Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:
>
>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>>> away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>>> evermore.
>>
>> excuse me.  Could you rewrite all that.  I was barfing at your pathetic
>> fanaticaboism and couldn't read the rest.
>
> Ah, there wasn't any fanboyism, it was doubled checked to be sure it was
> only the truth.
>
> why are you so against the best very products? that seems odd...

I have nothing against great products.  It is the fawning fanbois like 
yourself that I find stupid.

-- 
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article 
> <michelle-BDE4BE.14414708062010@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>>> IOW, you're just making stuff up to apologize for Apple.
>> IOW, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> And with that, I'm putting all messages crosspost to *.advocacy back into 
> my kill file.
> 


Please include the ones you just posted.

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:44:24 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:22:52 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
>>>>>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T
>>>>>> > > locks you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an
>>>>>> > > improved iPhone every year...
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
>>>>>> > foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
>>>>>> > whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come
>>>>>> > six to 12 months before the end of the contract.
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
>>>>>> > upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
>>>>>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on
>>>>>> ebay and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> it's a no brainer...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to
>>>>> lock people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know
>>>>> something about iPhone exclusivity running out.
>>>>
>>>> ... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them
>>>> for 2 years. If you don't they may jump sooner.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You clearly don't know how it works.
>>
>> You clearly don't know how it works.
> 
> Huh? I even described it to you below ... Are you really so lame as to
> just rebound statements with no understanding?

You clearly don't know how it works.

> 
> 
>>> It works like this in Europe too.
>>> The *advantage* is you get a REAL cheap handset and a good monthly
>>> unlimited data plan.
>>
>> ... hmmm.. unlimited data plan ... no longer available.
> 
> Do you know how much phones cost?

Costs whom? Verizon? Verizon's customers? ATT? ATT customers?

> 
> 
>>> Who can blame them for insisting you stay with them for a period of
>>> time?
>>
>> I can. And do.
>>
>>
> Of course. You are a freetard. Dont join them then!

You're a bigot. And I haven't joined them.

> 
>>> And 2 years is fine.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>>
> But we expect that as you don't have a clue though Rick. Market forces
> old bean.

I see you're as clueless as ever.

> 
>>> A good length of time for the
>>> ever more disposable "model of the day" that is becoming even more
>>> apparent in Android land.
>>
>> That would be the land that is rapidly catching up to the iPhone.
> 
> No Rick. I said "model of the day". Nothing about Android in general. Do
> TRY to understand.

What's that sound? Goalposts?

> 
> 
>>> At least with Apple you know your phone will be upgraded and not at
>>> the whim of one of however many independent HW manufacturers.
>>
>> It will be at the whim of Apple.
> 
> Yes and we know what a poor track record they have eh Rick? You sad,
> bitter little man.

I see you never tire of showing your ignorance and stupidity.

> 
> 
>> Another fine piece of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.
> 
> What are you talking about Rick? Did you take the wrong meds today?

I see you are still confused.

-- 
Rick

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 17:55:34 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
>> > Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4 blew
>> > away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing for
>> > evermore.
>> 
>> excuse me.  Could you rewrite all that.  I was barfing at your pathetic
>> fanaticaboism and couldn't read the rest.
> 
> Ah, there wasn't any fanboyism, it was doubled checked to be sure it was
> only the truth.
> 
> why are you so against the best very products? that seems odd...

fanboyism: Apple continues to crush all competitors.

You might want to tell that to the all those vendors selling more phones 
than Apple.



-- 
Rick

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:41:22 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:20:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:07:12 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:06:13 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple continues to crush all competitors, today the new iPhone 4
>>>>>>> blew away even the most skeptical and will clearly alter computing
>>>>>>> for evermore.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What Linux distro does it run?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Don't be such a prissy little dick all your life Rick. What Linux
>>>>> kernel does Windows run?
>>>>
>>>> Another fine example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate
>>>> Quark. </sarcasm>
>>> 
>>> It is.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
> 
> I see you're in top form today Rick. Razor sharp as ever! LOL.

... much sharper than  you.

> 
> 
>>> You and advocates are constantly talking about Windows. At least what
>>> they are discussing is seeded in IX land.
>>
>> I don't have any advocates.
> 
> I never said you did Rick. Obviously I mean 'you and the "advocates"'.
> Well it seemed obvious enough to me. Clearly not for you. I hope that
> clarified it for a little. If not dont be too shy to ask. We ARE here to
> help you Rick.

Have you read the COLA charter?

> 
>>>> Many of us are tired of fanboi Oxford and his incessant Apple
>>>> cheerleading.
>>> 
>>> Ask Dumb Willy Poaster how to operate a killfile or scoring mechanism
>>> in your news reader. Its not rocket science.
>>
>> .. and why is it you can't operate one?
> 
> I can Rick. And very very well. Hint : I use Gnus. Go read up about it.
> 
> I tend not to killfile en mass. Its the sign of a coward.

Then you must be doing mass killfiles.

-- 
Rick

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1a2mtjory5kje$.piq1mu0mgrky$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider.   Thanks anyway.
> 
> yeah, you've demonstrated that you ignore facts that dispute your beliefs, 
> if you really actually do believe the BS you spew.
> 

The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10% 
substance.  Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the 
iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its 
current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always 
costed more.

The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product.  At the 
time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold 
the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play 
significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the 
iPod did.

However, the faithful iUsers, like iSteiner here, liked their iPods 
either because they were incredibly ignorant about competing products or 
are under the ridiculously stupid impression that iPod's ONLY 
competition was Zune.

And now we have the iPhone 4.  Innovative?  Savvy?  Only from the point 
of view of an iTard.  Just about any of the latest Wi-Fi PDAs can do 
anything the iPhone 4 can do (i. e. video calling, video games, 
address/contacts, pictures, etc.) and at the same time be free of the 
sluggish AT&T network (formerly SBC, the world's crappiest phone co.)

On 6/9/2010 1:43 AM, Not an iTard wrote:
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <1a2mtjory5kje$.piq1mu0mgrky$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider. Thanks anyway.
>>
>> yeah, you've demonstrated that you ignore facts that dispute your
>> beliefs, if you really actually do believe the BS you spew.
>>
>
> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> costed more.
>
> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product. At the
> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold
> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play
> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the
> iPod did.
>
> However, the faithful iUsers, like iSteiner here, liked their iPods
> either because they were incredibly ignorant about competing products or
> are under the ridiculously stupid impression that iPod's ONLY
> competition was Zune.
>
> And now we have the iPhone 4. Innovative? Savvy? Only from the point of
> view of an iTard. Just about any of the latest Wi-Fi PDAs can do
> anything the iPhone 4 can do (i. e. video calling, video games,
> address/contacts, pictures, etc.) and at the same time be free of the
> sluggish AT&T network (formerly SBC, the world's crappiest phone co.)


Prove your claims.  Here's a list of iPhone 4 features.  Tell us exactly 
which WiFi PDA can do every single one of them, and just as well as the 
iPhone.

* 3.5", 960x640 resolution screen
* multitasking
* video calling out of the box
* front and rear cameras
* HD video recording and editing
* 5 megapixel camera with LED flash
* built-in gyroscope
* photo mgmt
* voice control over calling
* voice control over music
* text messaging
* usable onscreen keyboard
* connect bluetooth external keyboard
* GPS, digital compass, maps
* huge app store
* huge music store
* screen reading, wireless braille, closed-captioning
* built-in calendar
* voice memos
* built-in calculator
* parental controls
* hardware encryption
and more


Let's hear it <or slink away>

On Jun 9, 12:59=A0am, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/2010 1:43 AM, Not an iTard wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >> In article <1a2mtjory5kje$.piq1mu0mgrky$....@40tude.net>,
> >> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider. Thanks anyway.
>
> >> yeah, you've demonstrated that you ignore facts that dispute your
> >> beliefs, if you really actually do believe the BS you spew.
>
> > The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> > substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> > iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to it=
s
> > current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> > costed more.
>
> > The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product. At the
> > time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hol=
d
> > the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play
> > significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the
> > iPod did.
>
> > However, the faithful iUsers, like iSteiner here, liked their iPods
> > either because they were incredibly ignorant about competing products o=
r
> > are under the ridiculously stupid impression that iPod's ONLY
> > competition was Zune.
>
> > And now we have the iPhone 4. Innovative? Savvy? Only from the point of
> > view of an iTard. Just about any of the latest Wi-Fi PDAs can do
> > anything the iPhone 4 can do (i. e. video calling, video games,
> > address/contacts, pictures, etc.) and at the same time be free of the
> > sluggish AT&T network (formerly SBC, the world's crappiest phone co.)
>
> Prove your claims. =A0Here's a list of iPhone 4 features. =A0Tell us exac=
tly
> which WiFi PDA can do every single one of them, and just as well as the
> iPhone.
>
> * 3.5", 960x640 resolution screen
> * multitasking
> * video calling out of the box
> * front and rear cameras
> * HD video recording and editing
> * 5 megapixel camera with LED flash
> * built-in gyroscope
> * photo mgmt
> * voice control over calling
> * voice control over music
> * text messaging
> * usable onscreen keyboard
> * connect bluetooth external keyboard
> * GPS, digital compass, maps
> * huge app store
> * huge music store
> * screen reading, wireless braille, closed-captioning
> * built-in calendar
> * voice memos
> * built-in calculator
> * parental controls
> * hardware encryption
> and more
>
> Let's hear it <or slink away>

The iPhone 4 can't do any of that either judging from yesterdays
failed demo.

Not an iTard <techwiz@supertechie.com> wrote:

> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10% 
> substance.  Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the 
> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its 
> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always 
> costed more.

you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype

> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product.  At the 
> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold 
> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play 
> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the 
> iPod did.

but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74% 
share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any 
competing product. the iPod still plays all the main formats like it 
always has, so not sure what you are getting at.

> However, the faithful iUsers, like iSteiner here, liked their iPods 
> either because they were incredibly ignorant about competing products or 
> are under the ridiculously stupid impression that iPod's ONLY 
> competition was Zune.

when was there ever a competing product to the iPod? the zune got 
something like 2% share, but it never had a solid feature set, there was 
never a good music store, it has poor syncing, it never worked with 
macs, it had technical problems, horrible UI, etc.

> And now we have the iPhone 4.  Innovative?  Savvy?  Only from the point 
> of view of an iTard.  Just about any of the latest Wi-Fi PDAs can do 
> anything the iPhone 4 can do (i. e. video calling, video games, 
> address/contacts, pictures, etc.) and at the same time be free of the 
> sluggish AT&T network (formerly SBC, the world's crappiest phone co.)

yes, the iPhone 4 is a true breakthrough. the 323 dpi screen is twice 
the quality of any other smartphone, plus it's now twice as fast as any 
smartphone. take a good look at the new features, you'll be quite happy 
with what you see.

http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:53:31 -0600, Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org> wrote:
>Not an iTard <techwiz@supertechie.com> wrote:

>> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10% 
>> substance.  Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the 
>> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its 
>> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always 
>> costed more.

>you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype

>> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product.  At the 
>> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold 
>> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play 
>> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the 
>> iPod did.

>but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74% 
>share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any 

Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
quality.

AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:53:31 -0600, Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org> wrote:
>>Not an iTard <techwiz@supertechie.com> wrote:
> 
>>> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
>>> substance.  Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
>>> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to
>>> its current competition around the world, and at the same time, has
>>> always costed more.
> 
>>you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype
> 
>>> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product.  At
>>> the time it was popular, several competing audio players could not
>>> only hold the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but
>>> also play significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG,
>>> etc.) than the iPod did.
> 
>>but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74%
>>share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any
> 
> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
> quality.

OxRetard and dining?
He hasn't any cash left after buying every useless apple gadget under the 
sun
-- 
Only two things are infinite,
 the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
        - Albert Einstein

I cna tpye 300w rods per mniuet~!

Unless we form the habit of going to the Bible in bright moments as
well as in trouble, we cannot fully respond to its consolations
because we lack equilibrium between light and darkness.

CROSSPOST SNIPPED

Fake Peter K�hlmann pulled this Usenet boner:

> Unless we form the habit of going to the Bible in bright moments as
> well as in trouble, we cannot fully respond to its consolations
> because we lack equilibrium between light and darkness.

Using Jesus to troll Usenet!?!?!?

You're going to smoke a long turd in purgatory fer thet one laddie!

-- 
If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work
it's physics.

On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:

> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
> quality.


The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users 
in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.

On Jun 9, 2:53=A0am, Ted Nelson <t...@rnelson.org> wrote:
> Not an iTard <tech...@supertechie.com> wrote:
>
> > The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> > substance. =A0Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> > iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to it=
s
> > current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> > costed more.
>
> you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype


At least you didn't keep us wondering if you were a moron or not.
>
> > The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product. =A0At =
the
> > time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hol=
d
> > the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play
> > significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the
> > iPod did.
>
> but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74%
> share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any
> competing product. the iPod still plays all the main formats like it
> always has, so not sure what you are getting at.


LOL iPods are for children. Are you 12?

>
> > However, the faithful iUsers, like iSteiner here, liked their iPods
> > either because they were incredibly ignorant about competing products o=
r
> > are under the ridiculously stupid impression that iPod's ONLY
> > competition was Zune.
>
> when was there ever a competing product to the iPod? the zune got
> something like 2% share, but it never had a solid feature set, there was
> never a good music store, it has poor syncing, it never worked with
> macs, it had technical problems, horrible UI, etc.
>
> > And now we have the iPhone 4. =A0Innovative? =A0Savvy? =A0Only from the=
 point
> > of view of an iTard. =A0Just about any of the latest Wi-Fi PDAs can do
> > anything the iPhone 4 can do (i. e. video calling, video games,
> > address/contacts, pictures, etc.) and at the same time be free of the
> > sluggish AT&T network (formerly SBC, the world's crappiest phone co.)
>
> yes, the iPhone 4 is a true breakthrough. the 323 dpi screen is twice
> the quality of any other smartphone, plus it's now twice as fast as any
> smartphone. take a good look at the new features, you'll be quite happy
> with what you see.
>
> http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/

Zzzzzzzzzz Looks like a cell phone. One of the major problems with the
iPhone is a bad phone on a worse network.

On Jun 9, 4:25=A0am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:53:31 -0600, Ted Nelson <t...@rnelson.org> wrote:
> >Not an iTard <tech...@supertechie.com> wrote:
> >> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> >> substance. =A0Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> >> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to i=
ts
> >> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> >> costed more.
> >you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype
> >> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product. =A0At=
 the
> >> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only ho=
ld
> >> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play
> >> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than th=
e
> >> iPod did.
> >but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74%
> >share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any
>
> Do all your dining at McDonalds? =A0Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
> quality.

I would put the quality of McDonalds food higher than Apple products.
I mean the iCrap is Made in China by the lowest bidder by child slave
labor.

On 2010-06-09, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/9/2010 1:43 AM, Not an iTard wrote:
>> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>> In article <1a2mtjory5kje$.piq1mu0mgrky$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider. Thanks anyway.
>>>
>>> yeah, you've demonstrated that you ignore facts that dispute your
>>> beliefs, if you really actually do believe the BS you spew.
>>>
>>
>> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
>> substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
>> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
>> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
>> costed more.
>>
>> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product. At the
>> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold
>> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play
>> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the
>> iPod did.
>>
>> However, the faithful iUsers, like iSteiner here, liked their iPods
>> either because they were incredibly ignorant about competing products or
>> are under the ridiculously stupid impression that iPod's ONLY
>> competition was Zune.
>>
>> And now we have the iPhone 4. Innovative? Savvy? Only from the point of
>> view of an iTard. Just about any of the latest Wi-Fi PDAs can do
>> anything the iPhone 4 can do (i. e. video calling, video games,
>> address/contacts, pictures, etc.) and at the same time be free of the
>> sluggish AT&T network (formerly SBC, the world's crappiest phone co.)
>
>
> Prove your claims.  Here's a list of iPhone 4 features.  Tell us exactly 
> which WiFi PDA can do every single one of them, and just as well as the 
> iPhone.
>
> * 3.5", 960x640 resolution screen
> * multitasking
> * video calling out of the box
> * front and rear cameras
> * HD video recording and editing

   Can it handle whatever videos I throw at it?

   It was the overhype of the ipod that we started out with here. So lets
stick to some basic ipod type features. Can it at least handle the basics
of being an ipod in a robust manner?

[deletia]

    Dunno what use 640p is on a device that's only 3.5 inches but there
is something to be said for not needing to spend 10 hours or 20 days 
transcoding stuff.

-- 
    ...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in    |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening.      / | \

On 2010-06-09, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>> quality.
>
>
> The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users 
> in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.

    That may be the case. OTOH, there is nothing stopping anyone from leaving.
That is something that McDonalds has going for it that Windows and Apple does
not.

-- 
    ...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in    |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening.      / | \

KDT wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:37 am, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
>> introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly
>> sold (and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few
>> months, sticking it to those buyers. I don't recall them making it
>> up to them in any way.
>
> 1. So you mean other technology doesn't get a price reduction?  Isn't
> the very reason that PC manufacturers don't like to hold inventory
> because the value of the technology declines something like 3% every
> month?
>
> 2. Apple gave early iPhone buyers are $100 gift card.
>
>
I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the statement 
someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing 
a better version a short time later."

I don't care how you feel they "made up for it", the fact is that they "sold 
a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short time 
later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many buyers, 
the end result was that of feeling burnt.

Even the fact that other suppliers may or may not do the same thing doesn't 
change that the poster of the quote was just plain wrong, every 
justification posted here being unrelated to the issue at hand. Stay in 
context fellas, instead of trying to defend yourselves.

JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> =A0 Dunno what use 640p is on a device that's only 3.5 inches but there
> is something to be said for not needing to spend 10 hours or 20 days
> transcoding stuff.


Fair enough, but the counterpoint is tthat investing some background
(overnight) computer time to transcode stuff would have benefits along
the lines of more useful storage capacity and more useful battery life
for one's tiny portable.

Thus, a trade-off is involved, and YMMV as to which convenience factor
is more important to you.

IMPO, since the transcode only needs to be done once per media and
overnight time is 'free' (pluts as gravy, its pretty trivial to
automate this across an entire library), I'd be willing to perform
this transcode effort for the benefits on these usability factors for
the proverbial small portable device.

In fact, just did one overnight to be a pleasant surprise for my wife
to discover as new content on her 'small portable device'.


-hh

JEDIDIAH pulled this Usenet boner:

> On 2010-06-09, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>> quality.
>>
>> The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users 
>> in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>
>     That may be the case. OTOH, there is nothing stopping anyone from leaving.
> That is something that McDonalds has going for it that Windows and Apple does
> not.

And that point goes right over the head of DFS -- in spite of all the bug
reports, people generally like and use Ubuntu.  Must be pretty good
stuff for many people.

And these "sheeple" aspersions come from D F "Bill Gates is my sheperd" S.
Ironic.

-- 
"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet."
  "Now why didn't I think of that?"
		-- Post Bros. Comics

"Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:

> I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the statement 
> someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing 
> a better version a short time later."

yes, that's not how apple operates.

> I don't care how you feel they "made up for it", the fact is that they "sold 
> a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short time 
> later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many buyers, 
> the end result was that of feeling burnt.

but they didn't release a "better version"... they simply rebated some 
of the AT&T subsidy customers paid up front.

> Even the fact that other suppliers may or may not do the same thing doesn't 
> change that the poster of the quote was just plain wrong, every 
> justification posted here being unrelated to the issue at hand. Stay in 
> context fellas, instead of trying to defend yourselves.

yes, now you know what actually happened back in 2007.

On 08/06/10 10:43 PM, Not an iTard wrote:

> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> costed more.

You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to 
the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes 
store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM from 
the music, then converting it to another format. Even now, without DRM, 
to play iTunes songs on non-iPod you have to convert the m4p files to 
mp3 or some other format, and it's not a lossless conversion.

Providing both the hardware and the content was a brilliant marketing 
move by Apple on the iPod, and even more so on the iPhone (since at 
least the iPod could still play the MP3 format, but unless you jail 
break your iPhone you _must_ get your apps through the iTunes store).

It did not matter to the target market that other portable audio players 
had advantages such as MicroSD slots, FM radios, better sound quality, 
and support for music formats that provide less lossy compression. With 
those other player you were either ripping CDs to MP3, buying music from 
someplace like Amazon, or stealing music.

With the iPhone 4, Apple has a product to go up against the HTC 
Incredible. The iPhone 4 beats the HTC product by a significant margin 
in battery life and screen resolution and number of available 
applications, while the HTC product wins in expandability, screen size, 
and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the 
consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will 
not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.

In article <hukuku$oek$8@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 19:00:00 -0400, ZnU wrote:
> >
> >> In article <apony-CB2887.16082507062010@news.qwest.net>,
> >>  Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> > > Enjoy paying your early termination fees again because AT&T locks
> >>> > > you into a two year contract, while Apple brings out an improved
> >>> > > iPhone every year...
> >>> > 
> >>> > Do you really like to spout off ignorance and make yourself look
> >>> > foolish? AT&T is waiving the early termination fees for everyone
> >>> > whose upgrade date is this year.  And those upgrade dates come six to
> >>> > 12 months before the end of the contract.
> >>> > 
> >>> > Then, of course, you don't have to upgrade every model.  I didn't
> >>> > upgrade from my 3G to a 3GS, for instance.
> >>> 
> >>> exactly! anyone with a 3G within the 2010 window will quickly
> >>> upgrade... gosh, get the new iPhone 4, sell the old 3G for $199 on ebay
> >>> and there is basically zero cost to upgrade.
> >>> 
> >>> it's a no brainer...
> >>> 
> >>> http://www.apple.com/iphone/
> >> 
> >> Except that AT&T is clearly being so "nice" because they want to lock
> >> people into additional two year contracts. They obviously know something
> >> about iPhone exclusivity running out.
> >
> > ... or, they just want to lock people. Lock them now, you have them for 2 
> > years. If you don't they may jump sooner.
> 
> 
> You clearly dont know how it works. It works like this in Europe
> too. The *advantage* is you get a REAL cheap handset and a good monthly
> unlimited data plan. Who can blame them for insisting you stay with them
> for a period of time?

You're obviously still paying for the handset, you're just doing it in 
installments. $600 (the real cost of an iPhone or better Android 
handset) works out to $25/month over two years. I suspect the whole 
industry would be a lot less pathological if phones were just sold for 
full price, unlocked, and carriers changed $25/month less and didn't 
require contracts.

But of course then the carriers have no control over the handset market, 
which is what this is really about.

> And 2 years is fine. A good length of time for the
> ever more disposable "model of the day" that is becoming even more
> apparent in Android land. At least with Apple you know your phone will
> be upgraded and not at the whim of one of however many independent HW
> manufacturers.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In alt.cellular.attws MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would put the quality of McDonalds food higher than Apple products.
> I mean the iCrap is Made in China by the lowest bidder by child slave
> labor.

The only correct part of your statement is that it is made in China.  The rest
is unfounded and libel.

-- 
Thomas T. Veldhouse

  Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

In alt.cellular.attws SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 08/06/10 10:43 PM, Not an iTard wrote:
> 
>> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
>> substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
>> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
>> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
>> costed more.
> 
> You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to 
> the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes 
> store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM from 
> the music, then converting it to another format. Even now, without DRM, 
> to play iTunes songs on non-iPod you have to convert the m4p files to 
> mp3 or some other format, and it's not a lossless conversion.

The DRM free "Plus" files are simply m4a.  They play on the Creative Zen and a
similar chipset, on the Microsoft Zune.  No modification or reencoding
required.  I am afraid you are dead wrong with your last statement as it
pertains to DRM free music from the iTunes store.

> 
> Providing both the hardware and the content was a brilliant marketing 
> move by Apple on the iPod, and even more so on the iPhone (since at 
> least the iPod could still play the MP3 format, but unless you jail 
> break your iPhone you _must_ get your apps through the iTunes store).
> 
> It did not matter to the target market that other portable audio players 
> had advantages such as MicroSD slots, FM radios, better sound quality, 
> and support for music formats that provide less lossy compression. With 
> those other player you were either ripping CDs to MP3, buying music from 
> someplace like Amazon, or stealing music.

It DOES matter to me that they don't have a replaceable battery and expansion
capability; but even competitors that do have expansion capablity usually have
poor support for it [i.e. the Creative Zen has terrible support for it].

> 
> With the iPhone 4, Apple has a product to go up against the HTC 
> Incredible. The iPhone 4 beats the HTC product by a significant margin 
> in battery life and screen resolution and number of available 
> applications, while the HTC product wins in expandability, screen size, 
> and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the 
> consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will 
> not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.
> 

I am a Verizon customer who will never go to AT&T as long as they are GSM
based [at least, I don't forsee such a change].  I would like an iPhone on
Verizon for one major reason, my app purchases already made for my iPod Touch
could be directly placed on the iPhone without the necessity of purchasing the
analagous app on a different platform.  Having said that; I am not willing to
pay $30+ per phone per month to get limitted data (or even unlimitted data).
I prefer to invest in broadband and use WiFi where available [nearly
everywhere except my car .. where I listen to audiobooks most of the time
anyway and don't need wireless].

-- 
Thomas T. Veldhouse

  Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

In article <4c0fe343$0$1667$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 08/06/10 10:43 PM, Not an iTard wrote:
> 
> > The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> > substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> > iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
> > current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> > costed more.
> 
> You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to 
> the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes 
> store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM from 
> the music, then converting it to another format.

The reverse interpretation (that the success of iTunes was due to the 
iPod rather than the other way around) is much more consistent with a 
number of well established facts. For instance, it accounts for the fact 
that the vast majority of music on iPods wasn't purchased from iTunes, 
and the fact that Apple spent years trying to talk the labels out of 
DRM, ditched DRM as soon as the labels would let them, and saw no 
apparent decline in iPod sales as a result.

> Even now, without DRM, 
> to play iTunes songs on non-iPod you have to convert the m4p files to 
> mp3 or some other format, and it's not a lossless conversion.

Nonsense. Many other players support AAC. And actually, the players that 
don't support it _undermine_ your position. Since any other vendor could 
support it if they wanted to, the fact that some don't bother would tend 
to indicate that compatibility with iTunes Store music is not a critical 
factor in a device's success or failure in the market.

> Providing both the hardware and the content was a brilliant marketing 
> move by Apple on the iPod, and even more so on the iPhone (since at 
> least the iPod could still play the MP3 format, but unless you jail 
> break your iPhone you _must_ get your apps through the iTunes store).

You misunderstand the brilliance. It's not in creating lock-in (which 
doesn't seem to have all that much impact), but in creating a "curated" 
end-to-end experience. When users buy these devices and they want 
apps/content, there's one obvious, user-friendly source. As far as the 
mainstream market is concerned, the ability to do something like 
installing apps on your device might as well not even exist if the 
process of doing it is too geeky, and until the App Store showed up, it 
largely was.

> It did not matter to the target market that other portable audio players 
> had advantages such as MicroSD slots, FM radios, better sound quality, 
> and support for music formats that provide less lossy compression. With 
> those other player you were either ripping CDs to MP3, buying music from 
> someplace like Amazon, or stealing music.
> 
> With the iPhone 4, Apple has a product to go up against the HTC 
> Incredible. The iPhone 4 beats the HTC product by a significant margin 
> in battery life and screen resolution and number of available 
> applications, while the HTC product wins in expandability, screen size, 
> and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the 
> consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will 
> not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.

Only being on one US carrier is indeed a problem for the iPhone, and one 
I think Apple will probably fix in the next 12 months. Recent moves by 
AT&T seem to indicate they already know something about this.

Not letting people install software downloaded from random web sites is 
something a relatively small number of tech enthusiasts care about; it 
won't really hurt Apple with mainstream users.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

We should live our lives as though Christ was coming this afternoon.

On 6/9/2010 5:27 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> We should live our lives as though Christ was coming this afternoon.

You need to drop the forgeries, bozo.  Let the "advocates" hang 
themselves with their own words.

Derelict cum glutton with underfed spikebit, blighted nutz, and
two-by-four rectum begs for teensy hind-boot for vulgar pudwhacking. 
All replies to my email address at mailto:nospam@dfs_.com.

In article <apony-A989A7.12270309062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> but they didn't release a "better version"... they simply rebated some 
> of the AT&T subsidy customers paid up front.

there was no subsidy on the first iphone.

In article <4c0fc9f9$0$31276$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
 "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:

> KDT wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
> >> introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly
> >> sold (and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few
> >> months, sticking it to those buyers. I don't recall them making it
> >> up to them in any way.
> >
> > 1. So you mean other technology doesn't get a price reduction?  Isn't
> > the very reason that PC manufacturers don't like to hold inventory
> > because the value of the technology declines something like 3% every
> > month?
> >
> > 2. Apple gave early iPhone buyers are $100 gift card.
> >
> >
> I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the statement 
> someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing 
> a better version a short time later."
> 
> I don't care how you feel they "made up for it", the fact is that they "sold 
> a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short time 
> later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many buyers, 
> the end result was that of feeling burnt.

It's not an accurate statement in at least two ways. First, it 
misrepresents what happened. Apple didn't introduce a better phone a few 
months later; they originally sold an 8 GB version and a 4 GB version, 
and a few months later they got rid of the 4 GB version and dropped the 
price of the 8 GB version. And it's unlikely they intended to do this in 
advance; supposedly demand was just soft for the 4 GB version.

Second, the statement implies this is some sort of ongoing risk to 
iPhone customers, but that seems unlikely. Apple did this with the very 
first iPhone when they were still trying to understand the shape of the 
market. Since then they've settled into a very consistent pattern, and 
someone buying an iPhone can be reasonably certain it won't be 
superseded for 12 months.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On 6/9/2010 5:46 PM, DFS wrote:
> Derelict cum glutton with underfed spikebit, blighted nutz, and
> two-by-four rectum begs for teensy hind-boot for vulgar pudwhacking.
> All replies to my email address at mailto:nospam@dfs_.com.


Loser.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > but they didn't release a "better version"... they simply rebated some 
> > of the AT&T subsidy customers paid up front.
> 
> there was no subsidy on the first iphone.

ah, yes there certainly was... the "customer" paid it... that's why they 
were priced at $499 & $599 instead of $99 & $199...

so learn to check facts before you post...

In article <apony-0D9C24.16462209062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > but they didn't release a "better version"... they simply rebated some 
> > > of the AT&T subsidy customers paid up front.
> > 
> > there was no subsidy on the first iphone.
> 
> ah, yes there certainly was...

nope.

> the "customer" paid it...

which means it's not subsidized.

> that's why they 
> were priced at $499 & $599 instead of $99 & $199...

which means it's not subsidized.

> so learn to check facts before you post...

take your own advice.

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to 
> the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes 
> store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM from 
> the music, then converting it to another format. 

once again you are incorrect... the success of the ipod was tied to the 
fact it had firewire, synced well with itunes, played any common format 
and had a great interface.

the itms helped a few years later, but that was just another 
"feature"... and to this day, only 3% of music on any ipod was ever 
purchased on the itms.

In article <apony-76D1FB.16531109062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> once again you are incorrect... the success of the ipod was tied to the 
> fact it had firewire, synced well with itunes, played any common format 
> and had a great interface.

nope. sales of the 1st and 2nd gen ipods were not very high at all. mac
users had firewire but pc users generally didn't and had to use music
match.

the ipod started to take off with the 3rd generation ipod that had the
dock connector that supported both usb and firewire, along with the
itunes store. six months later, itunes for windows came out and sales
started to increase a little more.

however, it wasn't until the ipod mini and the 4th gen ipod with
clickwheel when sales *really* started to skyrocket.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > ah, yes there certainly was...
> 
> nope.
> 
> > the "customer" paid it...
> 
> which means it's not subsidized.

so it was subsidized by the tooth fairy? face the facts... it was 
subsidized by the customer, so you lose...

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > once again you are incorrect... the success of the ipod was tied to the 
> > fact it had firewire, synced well with itunes, played any common format 
> > and had a great interface.
> 
> nope. sales of the 1st and 2nd gen ipods were not very high at all. mac
> users had firewire but pc users generally didn't and had to use music
> match.

what? ipod sales were massive from early on, so you are forgetting to 
use the context of the market size at the time... oops!

> the ipod started to take off with the 3rd generation ipod that had the
> dock connector that supported both usb and firewire, along with the
> itunes store. six months later, itunes for windows came out and sales
> started to increase a little more.

no, it took off within 3 months, so it's clearly you don't know the 
history of the mp3 market.

> however, it wasn't until the ipod mini and the 4th gen ipod with
> clickwheel when sales *really* started to skyrocket.

not in the context of the rest of the mp3 market... you are mistakenly 
looking at "sales", not the nominal "percentage" of market share...

Chris Ahlstrom pulled this Usenet boner:

> We should live our lives as though Christ was coming this afternoon.

Okay.  I'll lay in a stock of bread and wine.

Now transubstantiate offa my name, troll.

-- 
If the future navigation system [for interactive networked services on
the NII] looks like something from Microsoft, it will never work.
		-- Chairman of Walt Disney Television & Telecommunications

In article <apony-C37E8A.17281309062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> what? ipod sales were massive from early on, so you are forgetting to 
> use the context of the market size at the time... oops!

they were not massive early on. 

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/IPodsales_2008Q3.svg>

In article <apony-631AF9.17205109062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> so it was subsidized by the tooth fairy? face the facts... it was 
> subsidized by the customer, so you lose...

if the customer pays it, then it's *not* subsidized. you lose, again.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:44:12 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <apony-C37E8A.17281309062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
> <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> what? ipod sales were massive from early on, so you are forgetting to
>> use the context of the market size at the time... oops!
> 
> they were not massive early on.
> 
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/
IPodsales_2008Q3.svg>

Do you really expect Oxford to recognize a reality in which an Apple 
product is not the best or most purchased in the world?

-- 
Rick

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > what? ipod sales were massive from early on, so you are forgetting to 
> > use the context of the market size at the time... oops!
> 
> they were not massive early on. 
> 
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/IPodsales_2008Q3.svg>

now contrast that to overall sales of other mp3 players during the 
related time periods, then you'll see the ipod was a massive hit from 
early on...

it seems you still need to learn the word "context"...

"the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs"

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > so it was subsidized by the tooth fairy? face the facts... it was 
> > subsidized by the customer, so you lose...
> 
> if the customer pays it, then it's *not* subsidized. you lose, again.

no, it simply means the customer assumed the burden of the subsidy, not 
the carrier...

so it appears you continue to have trouble with english vocabulary.

nospam wrote on [Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:50:47 -0400]:
> In article <apony-0D9C24.16462209062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
> <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>
>> > > but they didn't release a "better version"... they simply rebated some 
>> > > of the AT&T subsidy customers paid up front.
>> > 
>> > there was no subsidy on the first iphone.
>> 
>> ah, yes there certainly was...
>
> nope.
>
>> the "customer" paid it...
>
> which means it's not subsidized.
>
>> that's why they 
>> were priced at $499 & $599 instead of $99 & $199...
>
> which means it's not subsidized.
>
>> so learn to check facts before you post...
>
> take your own advice.

Is it vapour though? Or perhaps it's an upgrade?

Oxford wrote on [Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:04:14 -0600]:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > so it was subsidized by the tooth fairy? face the facts... it was 
>> > subsidized by the customer, so you lose...
>> 
>> if the customer pays it, then it's *not* subsidized. you lose, again.
>
> no, it simply means the customer assumed the burden of the subsidy, not 
> the carrier...
>
> so it appears you continue to have trouble with english vocabulary.

I know you are a troll, but here goes. It's not a subsidy if the customer pays
it. Subsidized by definition means it costs the customer less.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:04:14 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > so it was subsidized by the tooth fairy? face the facts... it was
>> > subsidized by the customer, so you lose...
>> 
>> if the customer pays it, then it's *not* subsidized. you lose, again.
> 
> no, it simply means the customer assumed the burden of the subsidy, not
> the carrier...

That's called full price... no subsidy.

> 
> so it appears you continue to have trouble with english vocabulary.





-- 
Rick

On 2010-06-09, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>> and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the 
>> consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will 
>> not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.
>
> I am a Verizon customer who will never go to AT&T as long as they are GSM
> based [at least, I don't forsee such a change].

Good news, AT&T's 3G network is entirely CDMA based.  Do you feel
better about them now?

Dennis Ferguson

On Jun 9, 1:06=A0pm, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:

> I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the statem=
ent
> someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releas=
ing
> a better version a short time later."
>
> I don't care how you feel they "made up for it",

No they made up for reducing the price quickly -- the second
complaint.

>the fact is that they "sold
> a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short time
> later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many buye=
rs,
> the end result was that of feeling burnt.

Apple releases a new iPhone *yearly*.  Every electronics manufacturer
releases newer better faster hardware, most phone manufacturers
upgrade much more frequently than Apple.

Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> >> if the customer pays it, then it's *not* subsidized. you lose, again.
> > 
> > no, it simply means the customer assumed the burden of the subsidy, not
> > the carrier...
> 
> That's called full price... no subsidy.

no, it means the customer paid the full subsidy up front... learn basic 
business rick...

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> I know you are a troll, but here goes. It's not a subsidy if the customer pays
> it. Subsidized by definition means it costs the customer less.

no, you are incorrect... it doesn't cost the customer less... it's 
simply an accounting maneuver... the customer pays the subsidy "up 
front" or "over 24 months"... take your pick...

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:28:56 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> >> if the customer pays it, then it's *not* subsidized. you lose,
>> >> again.
>> > 
>> > no, it simply means the customer assumed the burden of the subsidy,
>> > not the carrier...
>> 
>> That's called full price... no subsidy.
> 
> no, it means the customer paid the full subsidy up front... learn basic
> business rick...

No, it means full price. Learn basic honesty, Oxford.



-- 
Rick

Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> > no, it means the customer paid the full subsidy up front... learn basic
> > business rick...
> 
> No, it means full price. Learn basic honesty, Oxford.

give it up rick, you have lost another argument since you don't 
understand basic business accounting.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:43:56 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > no, it means the customer paid the full subsidy up front... learn
>> > basic business rick...
>> 
>> No, it means full price. Learn basic honesty, Oxford.
> 
> give it up rick, you have lost another argument since you don't
> understand basic business accounting.


Give it up Oxford, you have lost another argument since you don't 
understand basic business accounting.


-- 
Rick

On 09/06/10 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:

> the ipod started to take off with the 3rd generation ipod that had the
> dock connector that supported both usb and firewire, along with the
> itunes store. six months later, itunes for windows came out and sales
> started to increase a little more.

All true. The original thought was that iPod sales would drive more Mac 
sales so you could sync your music. The 3rd generation, when it was easy 
to use on a Windows PC, is when sales skyrocketed.

On 2010-06-09, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>
> JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>   Dunno what use 640p is on a device that's only 3.5 inches but there
>> is something to be said for not needing to spend 10 hours or 20 days
>> transcoding stuff.
>
>
> Fair enough, but the counterpoint is tthat investing some background
> (overnight) computer time to transcode stuff would have benefits along
> the lines of more useful storage capacity and more useful battery life
> for one's tiny portable.

    Except it's more than just overnight computer time.

    Furthermore, it's turning a 5 minute operation into "overnight".

    With a better SoC it doens't have to be that way and you don't have
to make compromises on quality. You can generate a reasonably small file
that suits both full size and mobile use.


>
> Thus, a trade-off is involved, and YMMV as to which convenience factor
> is more important to you.
>
> IMPO, since the transcode only needs to be done once per media and
> overnight time is 'free' (pluts as gravy, its pretty trivial to

    Unless you've got room for multiple copies of things, it has to 
be done every time you want to transfer something. Plus, you have the
added problem of managing that.

> automate this across an entire library), I'd be willing to perform
> this transcode effort for the benefits on these usability factors for
> the proverbial small portable device.
>
> In fact, just did one overnight to be a pleasant surprise for my wife
> to discover as new content on her 'small portable device'.

    Or you could have a device that doesn't inconvenience you.

-- 
     This is a consumer product.                                      |||
     World domination simply isn't necessary.                        / | \

On 2010-06-09, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <4c0fe343$0$1667$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/06/10 10:43 PM, Not an iTard wrote:
>> 
>> > The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
>> > substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
>> > iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
>> > current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
>> > costed more.
>> 
>> You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to 
>> the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes 
>> store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM from 
>> the music, then converting it to another format.
>
> The reverse interpretation (that the success of iTunes was due to the 
> iPod rather than the other way around) is much more consistent with a 
> number of well established facts. For instance, it accounts for the fact 
> that the vast majority of music on iPods wasn't purchased from iTunes, 
> and the fact that Apple spent years trying to talk the labels out of 
> DRM, ditched DRM as soon as the labels would let them, and saw no 

....yet they pushed it for Audio Books even when the authors didn't want
it. They also happily tolerated this DRM for movies and books and used
this as an opportunity to extract more money from the customer.

Regardless of the spin, the fact is that DRM media keeps a customer tied
to Apple products.

[deletia]

Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING all
of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite deciding
to swear off McDonalds.

-- 
     This is a consumer product.                                      |||
     World domination simply isn't necessary.                        / | \

In article <apony-24F9DA.19435609062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > no, it means the customer paid the full subsidy up front... learn basic
> > > business rick...
> > 
> > No, it means full price. Learn basic honesty, Oxford.
> 
> give it up rick, you have lost another argument since you don't 
> understand basic business accounting.

you don't understand basic english. go learn what subsidy *means*.

In article <slrni10jdb.nrc.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> Regardless of the spin, the fact is that DRM media keeps a customer tied
> to Apple products.

wrong

> Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING all
> of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite deciding
> to swear off McDonalds.

completely wrong.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > No, it means full price. Learn basic honesty, Oxford.
> > 
> > give it up rick, you have lost another argument since you don't 
> > understand basic business accounting.
> 
> you don't understand basic english. go learn what subsidy *means*.

learn what "accounting" means... then you'll understand what "subsidy" 
means in this context.

In article <apony-A3D44B.21391709062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> learn what "accounting" means... then you'll understand what "subsidy" 
> means in this context.

give it up. you're wrong, very wrong.

On 09/06/10 3:00 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<apony-A989A7.12270309062010@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
> <apony@pasture.com>  wrote:
>
>> but they didn't release a "better version"... they simply rebated some
>> of the AT&T subsidy customers paid up front.
>
> there was no subsidy on the first iphone.

Yeah, it was an interesting experiment that Apple tried with the 
original iPhone--sell it at full price with no subsidy _and_ get the 
carrier to share monthly revenue. They must have believed that no one 
would figure how to unlock it or to jailbreak it. Switching to the 
standard subsidized model is one of the reasons the 3G iPhone was so 
successful (that and because it was 3G).

Those that bought the 2G model knew full well that Apple would soon 
bring out a 3G model, Apple made no secret about it, but they did not 
want to wait. Same with the $200 price cut, those that had to be early 
adopters paid a lot more. They should have known that a product that is 
the first of its type in the market is always priced high and then the 
manufacturer lowers the price until they get the volumes they want (much 
better than charging too little at the beginning then trying to raise 
the price).

"Oxford" <apony@pasture.com> wrote in message 
news:apony-A8665A.17594709062010@news.qwest.net...
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > what? ipod sales were massive from early on, so you are forgetting to
>> > use the context of the market size at the time... oops!
>>
>> they were not massive early on.
>>
>> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/IPodsales_2008Q3.svg>
>
> now contrast that to overall sales of other mp3 players during the
> related time periods, then you'll see the ipod was a massive hit from
> early on...
>
> it seems you still need to learn the word "context"...
>
> "the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs"

You need to learn the word "hit."

You might lock in 90% of the consumer home submarine market with a model 
that sold 50 units annually.  An impressive share, but certainly not a 
"hit."  Using your definition, Apple TV is a "hit."  It has the lion's share 
of the "quasi-computer-like bricks that connect to your TV set for some 
reason or another" market...  ;)

When the iPod debuted, it may have sold impressive numbers compared to other 
MP3 players, but "no one" was buying MP3 players then.  75% of nothing is, 
well, nothing! ;)

I bought my first MP3 player, a Diamond Rio 500, shortly before the iPod 
existed, to use as an Audiobook player for my wife, making me the only 
person I knew at the time with an MP3 player- probably the only one I knew 
who knew what one was!  (I think I bought it subsidized from Audible.com as 
part of a subscription deal.  $99 rings a bell.)  I don't think I ever put a 
single song in it's puny (by today's standards) 64MB memory.  I've never 
owned a dedicated MP3 player for myself- I never saw the point, since I 
always carried a Pocket PC in those days, and among its features was MP3 
playback.  Lugging around a separate device, in addition to a phone and a 
PDA, just to play music seemed a little too 1980's Walkman-ish to me. 
Besides, particularly back then, at the turn of the century (I love getting 
to use that phrase!)PDAs were far better MP3 players than most MP3 players 
due to the larger displays and greater functionality.  (IMO, that hasn't 
really changed much!)

I don't think I ever even held an iPod until a friend showed me his "new" 
iPod in 2003 or so- I think it was one of the first with a dock connector 
(he had some type of boombox or speaker setup it plugged into without using 
an 1/8" plug cable) and he gave me a tour of the then still relatively new 
iTunes store on his Macbook.  IIRC, it was about that time- 2003 or so, that 
the iPod really took off and became a "hit" by anyone's standard.

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:27:55 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2010-06-09, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <4c0fe343$0$1667$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>>  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/06/10 10:43 PM, Not an iTard wrote:
>>> 
>>> > The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
>>> > substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
>>> > iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to
>>> > its current competition around the world, and at the same time, has
>>> > always costed more.
>>> 
>>> You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to
>>> the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes
>>> store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM
>>> from the music, then converting it to another format.
>>
>> The reverse interpretation (that the success of iTunes was due to the
>> iPod rather than the other way around) is much more consistent with a
>> number of well established facts. For instance, it accounts for the
>> fact that the vast majority of music on iPods wasn't purchased from
>> iTunes, and the fact that Apple spent years trying to talk the labels
>> out of DRM, ditched DRM as soon as the labels would let them, and saw
>> no
> 
> ...yet they pushed it for Audio Books even when the authors didn't want
> it. They also happily tolerated this DRM for movies and books and used
> this as an opportunity to extract more money from the customer.
> 
> Regardless of the spin, the fact is that DRM media keeps a customer tied
> to Apple products.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING all
> of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite deciding
> to swear off McDonalds.

IIRC, once you burned your music to CD, the DRM was gone.



-- 
Rick

In article <gfOdncs4IM-7I43RnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Rick
<none@mail.invalid> wrote:

> > Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING all
> > of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite deciding
> > to swear off McDonalds.
> 
> IIRC, once you burned your music to CD, the DRM was gone.

and that was fully supported.

Buck-toothed bottle-of-scent with dud fandangled mandangler, droopy
nuts, and bony bronze-eye begs for non-functioning cadbury-alley for
spirited dicky-whacking.  All replies to my email address at
mailto:nospam@dfs_.com.

If a pit bull wraps around your leg, fake an orgasm.

JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> >>   Dunno what use 640p is on a device that's only 3.5 inches but there
> >> is something to be said for not needing to spend 10 hours or 20 days
> >> transcoding stuff.
>
> > Fair enough, but the counterpoint is tthat investing some background
> > (overnight) computer time to transcode stuff would have benefits along
> > the lines of more useful storage capacity and more useful battery life
> > for one's tiny portable.
>
>     Except it's more than just overnight computer time.

Of course: it takes all of a minute of touch labor to set it up before
leaving the PC and then another minute in the morning to drop the
completed file into my data manager Application.  After that, the
transcoded file is small and thus only another minute to transfer (via
USB, etc) to the portable device...instead of figuratively tens of
minutes for the 10x larger original.   Per file.

All in all, its a smaller amount of touch labor than it took you took
you to write your post.   If you thus believe that that is such a huge
burden that no one should ever have to suffer through, then what
you're doing is preaching to yourself to STFU.   Ironic :-)


>     Furthermore, it's turning a 5 minute operation into "overnight".

Only once, and since that overnight operation requires no touch labor,
it isn't as big of a deal as you're trying to make it out to be.

We've had this debate before, and I'm acknowledging that it is a
personal trade-off.  It is your personal choice to continue to live
what I consider to be de-optimized, and vice-versa.

The problem that I see with your suggested alternative has to live day-
to-day with large files, and all of the burdens that it entails in its
application life-cycle, such as the fact that each time they're moved,
it will take 5x-10x longer to transfer ... and more often than not,
that operation is done while you're sitting there waiting for it.

Of course, you can alternatively choose to do that *overnight* too.  :-
P


>     With a better SoC it doens't have to be that way and you don't have
> to make compromises on quality. You can generate a reasonably small file
> that suits both full size and mobile use.

By which time it will be 2025.   Future hardware speculations are not
particularly germane to today's reality and Real World products for
how to live today, and for the foreseeable future.


> > Thus, a trade-off is involved, and YMMV as to which convenience factor
> > is more important to you.
>
> > IMPO, since the transcode only needs to be done once per media and
> > overnight time is 'free' (pluts as gravy, its pretty trivial to
>
>  Unless you've got room for multiple copies of things, it has to
> be done every time you want to transfer something.

Since desktop 3.5" HDD's are now incredibly cheap, I think that your
concern is being over-emphasized.   Of course, if you consider a 250GB
HDD to be "Huge!", then that illustrates our differences in
perspective.

BTW, if one has no particular desire to retain the full sized
original, storage demands actually go **down**.  Perhaps this is of
use to the luddites that are still out there with only an 80GB HD.


>  Plus, you have the added problem of managing that.

Already being performed adequately AFAIC with a free COTS solution.


> > automate this across an entire library), I'd be willing to perform
> > this transcode effort for the benefits on these usability factors for
> > the proverbial small portable device.
>
> > In fact, just did one overnight to be a pleasant surprise for my wife
> > to discover as new content on her 'small portable device'.
>
>     Or you could have a device that doesn't inconvenience you.

Which today consists of ... what?

I suspect that you're FUDing with Vaporware...feel free to prove me
wrong by identifying specific real world products that are shipping
today:  as a start, what specific make/model# Netbook is there today
that can play full rez 1080p HD, while still weighing <2lbs and with
10+ hour battery life?



-hh

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > learn what "accounting" means... then you'll understand what "subsidy" 
> > means in this context.
> 
> give it up. you're wrong, very wrong.

no, you lost another round... apple paid att the subsidy from the extra 
revenue of the early iphones, so it was nothing more than an accounting 
change... you lost, deal with it.

On 2010-06-10, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/06/10 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>> the ipod started to take off with the 3rd generation ipod that had the
>> dock connector that supported both usb and firewire, along with the
>> itunes store. six months later, itunes for windows came out and sales
>> started to increase a little more.
>
> All true. The original thought was that iPod sales would drive more Mac 
> sales so you could sync your music. The 3rd generation, when it was easy 
> to use on a Windows PC, is when sales skyrocketed.

....you can get a $200 PC or a $300 netbook if you want to sync your iDevices.

-- 
    It's a great paradox.                                            |||
                                                                    / | \
    Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their      
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital 
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT 
extensions with no real help from Apple.

On 2010-06-10, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>
> JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>> > JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>> >>   Dunno what use 640p is on a device that's only 3.5 inches but there
>> >> is something to be said for not needing to spend 10 hours or 20 days
>> >> transcoding stuff.
>>
>> > Fair enough, but the counterpoint is tthat investing some background
>> > (overnight) computer time to transcode stuff would have benefits along
>> > the lines of more useful storage capacity and more useful battery life
>> > for one's tiny portable.
>>
>>     Except it's more than just overnight computer time.
>
> Of course: it takes all of a minute of touch labor to set it up before
> leaving the PC and then another minute in the morning to drop the

....it's still a long wait.

[deletia]

>>     With a better SoC it doens't have to be that way and you don't have
>> to make compromises on quality. You can generate a reasonably small file
>> that suits both full size and mobile use.
>
> By which time it will be 2025.   Future hardware speculations are not
> particularly germane to today's reality and Real World products for
> how to live today, and for the foreseeable future.

    I'm not talking about "future hardware".

    My own current PMP doesn't have this annoying problem. Not that I
am particularly lazy or not have CPU cycles to spare, but I'm glad I
don't have to worry about futzing with different versions of the same
content to deal with lame devices.

    Apple is nice and pretty and does a few limited things really well
but in a limited way. If you've never seen anything else or would not
bother to seek new things out, it seems impressive. Otherwise, not so
much.

    They have a great approach for a consumer products company. They
can string along consumers like you until armageddon.

[deletia]

     Will the iphone allow for transcode-less content transfers for
video for any class of video? If not then, there are still other
competitors out there with better devices.

     It's too bad that Apple is so self limiting really...

     No storage. Can't play regular files. Doesn't automate the management
of dickering around with those regular files so that your Apple device will
actually allow them.

     It's quite a departure from the original sort of mythical iTunes 
"experience" that was based on music.

     Your wife likes that you sort it out for her. That says it all really.

-- 
    It's a great paradox.                                            |||
                                                                    / | \
    Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their      
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital 
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT 
extensions with no real help from Apple.

On 2010-06-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <gfOdncs4IM-7I43RnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Rick
><none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING all
>> > of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite deciding
>> > to swear off McDonalds.
>> 
>> IIRC, once you burned your music to CD, the DRM was gone.
>
> and that was fully supported.

....and completely lost on actual genuine novice end users.

If you need to be a geek to get around the barriers then they are still
barriers for most people. This is the sort of argument that everyone likes
to through at Linux (or Windows).

-- 
    It's a great paradox.                                            |||
                                                                    / | \
    Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their      
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital 
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT 
extensions with no real help from Apple.

On 2010-06-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <slrni10jdb.nrc.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> Regardless of the spin, the fact is that DRM media keeps a customer tied
>> to Apple products.
>
> wrong
>
>> Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING all
>> of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite deciding
>> to swear off McDonalds.
>
> completely wrong.

....then what happens to all of your DRM encumbered media when you decide
to consider another vendor's product?'

You're just screaming with your fingers in your ears. You really aren't
providing a compelling counterargument.

-- 
    It's a great paradox.                                            |||
                                                                    / | \
    Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their      
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital 
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT 
extensions with no real help from Apple.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:50:53 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> learn what "accounting" means... then you'll understand what "subsidy" 
>>> means in this context.
>> 
>> give it up. you're wrong, very wrong.
> 
> no, you lost another round... apple paid att the subsidy from the extra 
> revenue of the early iphones, so it was nothing more than an accounting 
> change... you lost, deal with it.

You got it backwards, as usual, Oxtard.    iPhone prices are subsidized by
AT&T subscriptions, not the other way around.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:

>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>> quality.


>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users 
>in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.

That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
with quality. 

On 6/10/2010 12:06 PM, AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS<nospam@dfs_.com>  wrote:
>> On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>> quality.
>
>
>> The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users
>> in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>
> That's hilarious.

No, it's just sad.



> You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
> with quality.

Clearly, so does most of the Linux "community".

AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:53:31 -0600, Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org> wrote:
>>Not an iTard <techwiz@supertechie.com> wrote:
>
>>> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10% 
>>> substance.  Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the 
>>> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its 
>>> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always 
>>> costed more.
>
>>you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype
>
>>> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product.  At the 
>>> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold 
>>> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play 
>>> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the 
>>> iPod did.
>
>>but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74% 
>>share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any 
>
> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
> quality.


You are a sad, embittered little loser aren't you? Always backing the
outsider in case it miraculously wins a race despite being older and
decripit and harping on about the glory days.

The iPod and Nano are wonderful pieces of HW with SW to match. Its WHY
people buy them. They are FREE to CHOOSE and they DID.

On 10/06/10 9:04 AM, Edwin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:50:53 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
>> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>
>>>> learn what "accounting" means... then you'll understand what "subsidy"
>>>> means in this context.
>>>
>>> give it up. you're wrong, very wrong.
>>
>> no, you lost another round... apple paid att the subsidy from the extra
>> revenue of the early iphones, so it was nothing more than an accounting
>> change... you lost, deal with it.
>
> You got it backwards, as usual, Oxtard.    iPhone prices are subsidized by
> AT&T subscriptions, not the other way around.

Correct. It was a revenue sharing arrangement that Apple negotiated 
where AT&T paid Apple a portion of the monthly fees. AT&T wanted the 
iPhone very badly so they agreed to this unusual arrangement. Oxford has 
it backwards--Apple never paid AT&T a subsidy.

It didn't work out for either party. A large percentage of early iPhones 
were simply purchased but not activated on AT&T. Technically this didn't 
hurt anyone, Apple still made a good profit on the unactivated iPhones, 
and AT&T didn't have to share any revenue from those phones. But the 
high price of the unsubsidized phones greatly limited sales since 
subscribers were so used to subsidized phones. So they switched to a 
subsidy model with the iPhone 3G.

AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:

> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>> quality.
>
>>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users 
>>in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>
> That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
> with quality. 

He isn't. He associates peoples desire to buy things with the appeal and
featureset and quality of that product.

You're an arse.

You wouldn't recognise quality if it crept up behind you and bit you on
the arse.

Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > no, you lost another round... apple paid att the subsidy from the extra 
> > revenue of the early iphones, so it was nothing more than an accounting 
> > change... you lost, deal with it.
> 
> You got it backwards, as usual, Oxtard.    iPhone prices are subsidized by
> AT&T subscriptions, not the other way around.

not with the first iphones they didn't... apple collected the subsidy up 
front, then paid att... you are thinking of current iphones, not the 
first models...

In alt.cellular.attws Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2010-06-09, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the 
>>> consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will 
>>> not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.
>>
>> I am a Verizon customer who will never go to AT&T as long as they are GSM
>> based [at least, I don't forsee such a change].
> 
> Good news, AT&T's 3G network is entirely CDMA based.  Do you feel
> better about them now?

It's based on a CDMA technology and license to Qualcomm.  But, it is the
phone portion that I am referring to.  After all, I am buying a phone first
and foremost.

Besides, AT&T 3G coverage does indeed stink compared to Verizon and AT&T
through tantrums about it when Verizon showed the truth in their ads about 3G
coverage.  AT&T ... and I paraphrase, "... that's not fair, because our older
data technology has a much larger footprint" ... so does Verizon's, so yes, it
is fair.

-- 
Thomas T. Veldhouse

  Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.

On 10/06/10 10:23 AM, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws Dennis Ferguson<dcferguson@pacbell.net>  wrote:
>> On 2010-06-09, Thomas T. Veldhouse<veldy71@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the
>>>> consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will
>>>> not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.
>>>
>>> I am a Verizon customer who will never go to AT&T as long as they are GSM
>>> based [at least, I don't forsee such a change].
>>
>> Good news, AT&T's 3G network is entirely CDMA based.  Do you feel
>> better about them now?
>
> It's based on a CDMA technology and license to Qualcomm.  But, it is the
> phone portion that I am referring to.  After all, I am buying a phone first
> and foremost.

And the phone part is on 3G CDMA too, except when there is no 3G 
network, then it reverts to their GSM network, which also has far poorer 
coverage in most of the U.S., at least according to _every_ independent 
survey in the past five years or so.

> Besides, AT&T 3G coverage does indeed stink compared to Verizon and AT&T
> through tantrums about it when Verizon showed the truth in their ads about 3G
> coverage.  AT&T ... and I paraphrase, "... that's not fair, because our older
> data technology has a much larger footprint" ... so does Verizon's, so yes, it
> is fair.

Threw not through.

And of course Verizon made it perfectly clear in those ads that they 
were talking about 3G coverage, not about 2G+3G coverage. By contrast, 
look at the trouble AT&T/Cingular got into with their ad campaign 
regarding "fewest dropped calls" which even the company they hired to do 
the study said was not true.

The good thing about AT&T's latest HSDPA incarnation is that it has 
faster download speeds than other 3G networks, though since Verizon is 
far ahead in LTE, that advantage won't last all that long.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:59:38 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>>> quality.
>>
>>>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users
>>>in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>>
>> That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
>> with quality.
> 
> He isn't. He associates peoples desire to buy things with the appeal and
> featureset and quality of that product.
> 
> You're an arse.
> 
> You wouldn't recognise quality if it crept up behind you and bit you on
> the arse.

You do have this fascination with arses don't you. Is this indicative of 
something gay about you?



-- 
I'm always kind, polite and reasonable....  except when I'm not.

SomeBloke <stuff@stuff.com> writes:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:59:38 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>>>> quality.
>>>
>>>>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users
>>>>in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>>>
>>> That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
>>> with quality.
>> 
>> He isn't. He associates peoples desire to buy things with the appeal and
>> featureset and quality of that product.
>> 
>> You're an arse.
>> 
>> You wouldn't recognise quality if it crept up behind you and bit you on
>> the arse.
>
> You do have this fascination with arses don't you. Is this indicative of 
> something gay about you?


Poor, even by your standards.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:10:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> SomeBloke <stuff@stuff.com> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:59:38 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>>>>> quality.
>>>>
>>>>>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux
>>>>>users in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>>>>
>>>> That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
>>>> with quality.
>>> 
>>> He isn't. He associates peoples desire to buy things with the appeal
>>> and featureset and quality of that product.
>>> 
>>> You're an arse.
>>> 
>>> You wouldn't recognise quality if it crept up behind you and bit you
>>> on the arse.
>>
>> You do have this fascination with arses don't you. Is this indicative
>> of something gay about you?
> 
> 
> Poor, even by your standards.

I have standards, I just don't let them get in the way of a cheap jibe.



-- 
I'm always kind, polite and reasonable....  except when I'm not.

On 2010-06-10, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
> In alt.cellular.attws Dennis Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2010-06-09, Thomas T. Veldhouse <veldy71@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> and connectability. What Apple needs to be concerned about are the 
>>>> consumers that consider the HTC Incredible "good enough" and that will 
>>>> not give up Verizon's network in order to get an iPhone.
>>>
>>> I am a Verizon customer who will never go to AT&T as long as they are GSM
>>> based [at least, I don't forsee such a change].
>> 
>> Good news, AT&T's 3G network is entirely CDMA based.  Do you feel
>> better about them now?
>
> It's based on a CDMA technology and license to Qualcomm.  But, it is the
> phone portion that I am referring to.  After all, I am buying a phone first
> and foremost.

Qualcomm participates in the patent pool, yes, as do a bunch of
other companies.  The particular CDMA variant they use was developed
by NTT in Japan (which is why DoCoMo had a not-quite-standard 3G network
for a long time) so I suspect the latter might have considerable IPR as
well.

I think you are confused about how the technology works, though.  AT&T's
3G network, like all 3G networks, is a complete network providing both voice
and data service over the CDMA air interface.  When you are using AT&T 3G
for data you are also using AT&T 3G for voice, your phone doesn't try to
connect to both networks at once, and if you set your phone to use 3G only
it will never use their GSM service for anything at all.  There are quite
a few 3G network operators with no GSM network (e.g. 3 in the UK and other
European countries, Wind, Telus and Bell Mobility in Canada, and several
Korean and Japanese operators) and both my wife's iPhone and my own 3G
phone work fine for voice service with all of those mentioned.  And for
AT&T I'd point out that at the height of their 3G network overload last
year, when you couldn't complete a 3G voice call or keep it up for more
than a minute or two in busy locations like the San Francisco airport,
switching the phone back to GSM would make the voice call problem go away.
The GSM and 3G networks might share some resources on the far side of
the antenna, but are entirely separate for both voice and data at the air
interface.

So do you feel better about AT&T now, or is your aversion to them
really based on something other than GSM?

> Besides, AT&T 3G coverage does indeed stink compared to Verizon and AT&T
> through tantrums about it when Verizon showed the truth in their ads about 3G
> coverage.  AT&T ... and I paraphrase, "... that's not fair, because our older
> data technology has a much larger footprint" ... so does Verizon's, so yes, it
> is fair.

There is that.  I'm not sure what "older data technology" you are talking
about for Verizon, though, since as far as I know Verizon's entire network
is a 3G network now.  For CDMA the 2G (voice+data) network was IS-95 while
the 3G (voice+data) network is CDMA2000, see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDMA2000

and I'm pretty sure Verizon replaced all remaining IS-95 equipment a
few years ago.  The difference, of course, is that Verizon's 3G network
is backwards-compatible with their 2G handsets while AT&T's isn't, so
Verizon was able to replace their entire 2G network with 3G while
AT&T was forced to keep both.

It does kind of illustrate the difference between how Verizon and
AT&T got to where they are, however.  Over the past decade and a bit
AT&T (or its predecessors) were forced to build two new, separate
networks (GSM, then UMTS) to run along side their existing network
services (TDMA, then GSM), while Verizon was able to spend all their
money just improving the network service they already had, so it
doesn't surprise me that Verizon ended up with an improved service.
Since they are both faced with deploying a new, separate network (LTE)
to run along side of their existing service over the next couple of
years, however, we'll get to see if AT&T learned anything from their
past experience with that which Verizon missed out on.

Dennis Ferguson

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:10:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> SomeBloke <stuff@stuff.com> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:59:38 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>>>>> quality.
>>>>
>>>>>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux
>>>>>users in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>>>>
>>>> That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
>>>> with quality.
>>> 
>>> He isn't. He associates peoples desire to buy things with the appeal
>>> and featureset and quality of that product.
>>> 
>>> You're an arse.
>>> 
>>> You wouldn't recognise quality if it crept up behind you and bit you
>>> on the arse.
>>
>> You do have this fascination with arses don't you. Is this indicative
>> of something gay about you?
> 
> 
> Poor, even by your standards.

I have standards, I just don't let them get in the way of a cheap jibe.



-- 
I'm always kind, polite and reasonable....  except when I'm not.

In article <slrni1230f.bci.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> >> IIRC, once you burned your music to CD, the DRM was gone.
> >
> > and that was fully supported.
> 
> ...and completely lost on actual genuine novice end users.

nope. it's a well publicized and easy to use feature.

> If you need to be a geek to get around the barriers then they are still
> barriers for most people. This is the sort of argument that everyone likes
> to through at Linux (or Windows).

burning a cd in itunes is no more complex than inserting a cd and
clicking the burn button.

In article <slrni1232a.bci.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> ...then what happens to all of your DRM encumbered media when you decide
> to consider another vendor's product?'

how about music that used plays for sure? it was drm'ed and
discontinued. you didn't even have to consider another vendor's
product, because the vendor did that for you by abandoning it entirely.

as i said, you *can* burn any drm'ed itunes music to a cd, at which
point it is no longer copy protected. that's fully supported by apple
and the record companies.

> You're just screaming with your fingers in your ears. You really aren't
> providing a compelling counterargument.

i'm not the one with fingers in one's ears.

On 2010-06-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <slrni1232a.bci.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> ...then what happens to all of your DRM encumbered media when you decide
>> to consider another vendor's product?'
>
> how about music that used plays for sure? it was drm'ed and
> discontinued. you didn't even have to consider another vendor's
> product, because the vendor did that for you by abandoning it entirely.
>
> as i said, you *can* burn any drm'ed itunes music to a cd, at which

    That's the tip of a very large iceberg and this isn't even a very
feasable workaround even for a small amount of data.

> point it is no longer copy protected. that's fully supported by apple
> and the record companies.
>
>> You're just screaming with your fingers in your ears. You really aren't
>> providing a compelling counterargument.
>
> i'm not the one with fingers in one's ears.

    Sure you are. You try to fixate only on music when there's a lot
more at the Apple store. If we take your approach and discount ALL of
the stuff that Apple wants to push on you that has DRM, then there 
really isn't much left to talk about.

    Even with music there's the problem of legacy content.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.
    

On 2010-06-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> In article <slrni1230f.bci.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> >> IIRC, once you burned your music to CD, the DRM was gone.
>> >
>> > and that was fully supported.
>> 
>> ...and completely lost on actual genuine novice end users.
>
> nope. it's a well publicized and easy to use feature.

....which doesn't alter how this ends up in practice.

[deletia]

It's so amusing watching Mac fanboys push the same sorts of 
arguments they would laugh at if those sorts of arguments
were coming from anyone else.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.
    

On 2010-06-10, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:53:31 -0600, Ted Nelson <ted@rnelson.org> wrote:
>>>Not an iTard <techwiz@supertechie.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10% 
>>>> substance.  Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the 
>>>> iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its 
>>>> current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always 
>>>> costed more.
>>
>>>you seem to have it flipped. technically, it's 90% substance, 10% hype
>>
>>>> The iPod is a perfect example of an enormously inferior product.  At the 
>>>> time it was popular, several competing audio players could not only hold 
>>>> the same amount of music and/or more for a smaller price but also play 
>>>> significantly more patent-free formats (i. e. FLAC, OGG, etc.) than the 
>>>> iPod did.
>>
>>>but the iPod remains the No. 1 music player by a wide margin, it has 74% 
>>>share and is still growing. the iPod has far more features than any 
>>
>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>> quality.
>
>
> You are a sad, embittered little loser aren't you? Always backing the
> outsider in case it miraculously wins a race despite being older and
> decripit and harping on about the glory days.
>
> The iPod and Nano are wonderful pieces of HW with SW to match. Its WHY
> people buy them. They are FREE to CHOOSE and they DID.

    Once single vendor DRM enters the picture, claims like that are simply 
wishful thinking that attempts to completely ignore the real facts.

    It's an MS-DOS redux.

-- 
     The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is       |||
     that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse    / | \
     for it.
    

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:29:44 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <1a2mtjory5kje$.piq1mu0mgrky$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> I've already learned to ignore AppleInsider.   Thanks anyway.
> 
> yeah, you've demonstrated that you ignore facts that dispute your beliefs, 
> if you really actually do believe the BS you spew.

This is an example of why you never get accused of honesty.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:38:36 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <10goq3mtidgfj$.snuo5qr7t2g4.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>> People who bought the iPhone 3G last June have an upgrade date in 
>>>>> December 2010, and therefore have had that date reset to allow them 
>>>>> to get the iPhone 4 at the fully subsidized price.
>>>> 
>>>> Prove it.
>>> 
>>> It's right in AT&T's press releases.  Do you want me to prove that the 
>>> sun shines in the daytime too?
>> 
>> Your lack of proof is noted... and it was completely expected.
> 
> You doubt the veracity of AT&T's press release?  That's your problem, not 
> mine, bigotboi.
> 
> Oh, speaking of the sun shining, get your head out of that place where it 
> doesn't shine.

You've mistaken bluster and empty insults for proof.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:00:15 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2010-06-10, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <gfOdncs4IM-7I43RnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Rick
>><none@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> > Migrate to another product and you have to weigh it against LOSING
>>> > all of your paid-for content from the iTunes store. It's not quite
>>> > deciding to swear off McDonalds.
>>> 
>>> IIRC, once you burned your music to CD, the DRM was gone.
>>
>> and that was fully supported.
> 
> ...and completely lost on actual genuine novice end users.

Most things are lost on genuine novice end users, including how to "buy" 
music online.

> 
> If you need to be a geek to get around the barriers then they are still
> barriers for most people. This is the sort of argument that everyone
> likes to through at Linux (or Windows).

Burning music to a CD makes you a geek?

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:19:20 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>>> no, you lost another round... apple paid att the subsidy from the extra 
>>> revenue of the early iphones, so it was nothing more than an accounting 
>>> change... you lost, deal with it.
>> 
>> You got it backwards, as usual, Oxtard.    iPhone prices are subsidized by
>> AT&T subscriptions, not the other way around.
> 
> not with the first iphones they didn't... 

Which is why the first iPhones cost $500-$600.

> apple collected the subsidy up front, then paid att... 

They did nothing of the kind.

> you are thinking of current iphones, not the 
> first models...

Your claims don't apply to any model of iPhone, new or old.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:00:56 -0400, ZnU wrote:

> In article <4c0fc9f9$0$31276$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
>  "Carl" <crothman@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> 
>> KDT wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 11:37 am, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am not an anti-Apple person, but this is not my recollection of the
>>>> introduction of the first iPhone where they discontinued the highly
>>>> sold (and lower priced) lower memory version after only a few
>>>> months, sticking it to those buyers. I don't recall them making it
>>>> up to them in any way.
>>>
>>> 1. So you mean other technology doesn't get a price reduction?  Isn't
>>> the very reason that PC manufacturers don't like to hold inventory
>>> because the value of the technology declines something like 3% every
>>> month?
>>>
>>> 2. Apple gave early iPhone buyers are $100 gift card.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the statement 
>> someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing 
>> a better version a short time later."
>> 
>> I don't care how you feel they "made up for it", the fact is that they "sold 
>> a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short time 
>> later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many buyers, 
>> the end result was that of feeling burnt.
> 
> It's not an accurate statement in at least two ways. First, it 
> misrepresents what happened. Apple didn't introduce a better phone a few 
> months later; they originally sold an 8 GB version and a 4 GB version, 
> and a few months later they got rid of the 4 GB version and dropped the 
> price of the 8 GB version. 

They dropped the price of the 8 GB version a month after it was introduced,
not "a few months later," and worse, they dropped it to the price of the 4
GB model!

> And it's unlikely they intended to do this in 
> advance; supposedly demand was just soft for the 4 GB version.

So they screwed everybody who bought one!

> Second, the statement implies this is some sort of ongoing risk to 
> iPhone customers, but that seems unlikely. Apple did this with the very 
> first iPhone when they were still trying to understand the shape of the 
> market. Since then they've settled into a very consistent pattern, and 
> someone buying an iPhone can be reasonably certain it won't be 
> superseded for 12 months.

Is anybody stupid enough to ignore Apple's history of screwing its
customers and believe this Apple shill and apologist instead?

> [snip]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:04:12 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:

> On Jun 9, 1:06�pm, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> 
>> I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the statement
>> someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of releasing
>> a better version a short time later."
>>
>> I don't care how you feel they "made up for it",
> 
> No they made up for reducing the price quickly -- the second
> complaint.
> 
>>the fact is that they "sold
>> a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short time
>> later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many buyers,
>> the end result was that of feeling burnt.
> 
> Apple releases a new iPhone *yearly*.  Every electronics manufacturer
> releases newer better faster hardware, most phone manufacturers
> upgrade much more frequently than Apple.

You may now document your claim.

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

In article <1pk1x1gic84te$.14i64yfwkk90y$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
<thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > It's not an accurate statement in at least two ways. First, it 
> > misrepresents what happened. Apple didn't introduce a better phone a few 
> > months later; they originally sold an 8 GB version and a 4 GB version, 
> > and a few months later they got rid of the 4 GB version and dropped the 
> > price of the 8 GB version. 
> 
> They dropped the price of the 8 GB version a month after it was introduced,
> not "a few months later," and worse, they dropped it to the price of the 4
> GB model!

the price cut was in september, which in any calendar i've ever seen,
is a few months after june, when the iphone came out.

> > And it's unlikely they intended to do this in 
> > advance; supposedly demand was just soft for the 4 GB version.
> 
> So they screwed everybody who bought one!

prices drop for a lot of products, and they gave people a $100 gift
certificate.

wolfram alpha was $50 and it didn't sell, so they cut the price to $2.
why doesn't anyone bitch about that? 

> > Second, the statement implies this is some sort of ongoing risk to 
> > iPhone customers, but that seems unlikely. Apple did this with the very 
> > first iPhone when they were still trying to understand the shape of the 
> > market. Since then they've settled into a very consistent pattern, and 
> > someone buying an iPhone can be reasonably certain it won't be 
> > superseded for 12 months.
> 
> Is anybody stupid enough to ignore Apple's history of screwing its
> customers and believe this Apple shill and apologist instead?

if they screwed their customers as much as you think, they wouldn't be
selling as much as they are.

In article <slrni12ibb.aut.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>     Sure you are. You try to fixate only on music when there's a lot
> more at the Apple store. If we take your approach and discount ALL of
> the stuff that Apple wants to push on you that has DRM, then there 
> really isn't much left to talk about.

apple doesn't want the drm, the content providers do.

so how about microsoft's plays for sure drm, which was abandoned?

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:20:47 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <1pk1x1gic84te$.14i64yfwkk90y$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> > It's not an accurate statement in at least two ways. First, it
>> > misrepresents what happened. Apple didn't introduce a better phone a
>> > few months later; they originally sold an 8 GB version and a 4 GB
>> > version, and a few months later they got rid of the 4 GB version and
>> > dropped the price of the 8 GB version.
>> 
>> They dropped the price of the 8 GB version a month after it was
>> introduced, not "a few months later," and worse, they dropped it to the
>> price of the 4 GB model!
> 
> the price cut was in september, which in any calendar i've ever seen, is
> a few months after june, when the iphone came out.
> 
>> > And it's unlikely they intended to do this in advance; supposedly
>> > demand was just soft for the 4 GB version.
>> 
>> So they screwed everybody who bought one!
> 
> prices drop for a lot of products, and they gave people a $100 gift
> certificate.
> 
> wolfram alpha was $50 and it didn't sell, so they cut the price to $2.
> why doesn't anyone bitch about that?
> 
>> > Second, the statement implies this is some sort of ongoing risk to
>> > iPhone customers, but that seems unlikely. Apple did this with the
>> > very first iPhone when they were still trying to understand the shape
>> > of the market. Since then they've settled into a very consistent
>> > pattern, and someone buying an iPhone can be reasonably certain it
>> > won't be superseded for 12 months.
>> 
>> Is anybody stupid enough to ignore Apple's history of screwing its
>> customers and believe this Apple shill and apologist instead?
> 
> if they screwed their customers as much as you think, they wouldn't be
> selling as much as they are.

Microsoft screws their customer as bad or worse, and they keep selling 
their stuff ...


-- 
Rick

In article <slrni10jdb.nrc.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2010-06-09, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <4c0fe343$0$1667$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >  SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/06/10 10:43 PM, Not an iTard wrote:
> >> 
> >> > The only relevant fact is that Apple products are 90% hype, 10%
> >> > substance. Every single iProduct, from the iMac to the iPod to the
> >> > iPhone, has always been TECHNICALLY INFERIOR (less functionality) to its
> >> > current competition around the world, and at the same time, has always
> >> > costed more.
> >> 
> >> You miss the whole point. The iPod's success was inextricably tied to 
> >> the iTunes store, and only iPods could play the music from the iTunes 
> >> store unless the user went through the trouble of removing the DRM from 
> >> the music, then converting it to another format.
> >
> > The reverse interpretation (that the success of iTunes was due to the 
> > iPod rather than the other way around) is much more consistent with a 
> > number of well established facts. For instance, it accounts for the fact 
> > that the vast majority of music on iPods wasn't purchased from iTunes, 
> > and the fact that Apple spent years trying to talk the labels out of 
> > DRM, ditched DRM as soon as the labels would let them, and saw no 
> 
> ...yet they pushed it for Audio Books even when the authors didn't want
> it.

*Publishers* insist on DRM for audio books, over the objections of some 
authors. There is no evidence that Apple has ever "pushed" it.

> They also happily tolerated this DRM for movies and books and used
> this as an opportunity to extract more money from the customer.

They didn't "happily tolerate" it. They openly opposed it and worked 
behind the scenes to convince content rights owners that it wasn't worth 
bothering with.

> Regardless of the spin, the fact is that DRM media keeps a customer tied
> to Apple products.

So why is Apple trying to get rid of it?

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

SomeBloke pulled this Usenet boner:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:59:38 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> writes:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:30:03 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>>On 6/9/2010 4:25 AM, AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Do all your dining at McDonalds?  Perhaps popularity doesn't equal
>>>>> quality.
>>>
>>>>The Linux sheeple that run Ubuntu (an astounding 65% of all Linux users
>>>>in the world) don't want to hear that, NoNad.
>>>
>>> That's hilarious.  You're a blithering idiot who equates popularity
>>> with quality.
>> 
>> He isn't. He associates peoples desire to buy things with the appeal and
>> featureset and quality of that product.
>> 
>> You're an arse.
>> 
>> You wouldn't recognise quality if it crept up behind you and bit you on
>> the arse.
>
> You do have this fascination with arses don't you. Is this indicative of 
> something gay about you?

No, it indicates a fascination with DFS.  :-D

-- 
Arses of a pucker/
Fart together/

On 10/06/10 2:12 PM, Edwin wrote:

> They dropped the price of the 8 GB version a month after it was introduced,
> not "a few months later," and worse, they dropped it to the price of the 4
> GB model!
>
>> And it's unlikely they intended to do this in
>> advance; supposedly demand was just soft for the 4 GB version.
>
> So they screwed everybody who bought one!

You don't understand how pricing works. With a device like the iPhone, 
the manufacturer really has no idea of how to price it initially because 
there are really no direct competitors. If you price it too low, demand 
outstrips supply and you've left money on the table, and you can't raise 
the price after you've been selling it at a lower price. If you price it 
too high, and demand is low, then you drop the price to stimulate 
demand, and you upset only the early adopters who simply have to have a 
new device as soon as it comes onto the market. The latter is what 
happened with the iPhone. They priced it way too high, especially 
considering that it was not being subsidized, and demand was low. They 
fixed the problem. Some of the people that paid more for the first ones 
were upset. Too bad.

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:22:41 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <slrni12ibb.aut.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
> <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>>     Sure you are. You try to fixate only on music when there's a lot
>> more at the Apple store. If we take your approach and discount ALL of
>> the stuff that Apple wants to push on you that has DRM, then there 
>> really isn't much left to talk about.
> 
> apple doesn't want the drm, the content providers do.
> 
> so how about microsoft's plays for sure drm, which was abandoned?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/playsforsure/

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:22:41 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <slrni12ibb.aut.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
> <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>>     Sure you are. You try to fixate only on music when there's a lot
>> more at the Apple store. If we take your approach and discount ALL of
>> the stuff that Apple wants to push on you that has DRM, then there 
>> really isn't much left to talk about.
> 
> apple doesn't want the drm, the content providers do.
> 
> so how about microsoft's plays for sure drm, which was abandoned?

http://www.rioaudio.com/support/rio/playsforsure.asp

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:22:41 -0400, nospam wrote:

> In article <slrni12ibb.aut.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
> <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
>>     Sure you are. You try to fixate only on music when there's a lot
>> more at the Apple store. If we take your approach and discount ALL of
>> the stuff that Apple wants to push on you that has DRM, then there 
>> really isn't much left to talk about.
> 
> apple doesn't want the drm, the content providers do.
> 
> so how about microsoft's plays for sure drm, which was abandoned?

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Browse.aspx?type=Hardware&category=MP3%20%26%20Media%20Players&subcategory=Other%20Media%20Players

-- 
"My aunt bought herself a used Dell"  -- Alan Baker

nospam wrote on [Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:20:47 -0400]:
> In article <1pk1x1gic84te$.14i64yfwkk90y$.dlg@40tude.net>, Edwin
> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > It's not an accurate statement in at least two ways. First, it 
>> > misrepresents what happened. Apple didn't introduce a better phone a few 
>> > months later; they originally sold an 8 GB version and a 4 GB version, 
>> > and a few months later they got rid of the 4 GB version and dropped the 
>> > price of the 8 GB version. 
>> 
>> They dropped the price of the 8 GB version a month after it was introduced,
>> not "a few months later," and worse, they dropped it to the price of the 4
>> GB model!
>
> the price cut was in september, which in any calendar i've ever seen,
> is a few months after june, when the iphone came out.
>
>> > And it's unlikely they intended to do this in 
>> > advance; supposedly demand was just soft for the 4 GB version.
>> 
>> So they screwed everybody who bought one!
>
> prices drop for a lot of products, and they gave people a $100 gift
> certificate.

a 50% sort of refund.

> wolfram alpha was $50 and it didn't sell, so they cut the price to $2.
> why doesn't anyone bitch about that? 

Because they refunded the difference?

>> Is anybody stupid enough to ignore Apple's history of screwing its
>> customers and believe this Apple shill and apologist instead?
>
> if they screwed their customers as much as you think, they wouldn't be
> selling as much as they are.

Oh bulldust, they provide virtually no upgrade path but to buy a new machine
they yank applications from the app store for no good reason.

On Jun 10, 5:13=A0pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:04:12 -0700 (PDT), KDT wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 1:06=A0pm, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> I'm not clear on your point here, but all I was addressing was the sta=
tement
> >> someone made that " They don't sell gimped phones with the idea of rel=
easing
> >> a better version a short time later."
>
> >> I don't care how you feel they "made up for it",
>
> > No they made up for reducing the price quickly -- the second
> > complaint.
>
> >>the fact is that they "sold
> >> a gimped phone with the idea of releasing a better version a short tim=
e
> >> later", which the person I quoted denied they do and which, for many b=
uyers,
> >> the end result was that of feeling burnt.
>
> > Apple releases a new iPhone *yearly*. =A0Every electronics manufacturer
> > releases newer better faster hardware, most phone manufacturers
> > upgrade much more frequently than Apple.
>
> You may now document your claim.
>
> --
> "My aunt bought herself a used Dell" =A0-- Alan Baker

You want me to document that Apple released their first iPhone in the
summer of 2007, the 3G is Summer of 2008, the 3GS in the summer of
2009, and the iPhone 4 this summer?  Or that HTC, etc. release more
frequently than Apple does?

On Jun 10, 11:58=A0am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2010-06-10, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> [etc]
> >> =A0 =A0 Except it's more than just overnight computer time.
>
> > Of course: it takes all of a minute of touch labor to set it up before
> > leaving the PC and then another minute in the morning to drop the
>
> ...it's still a long wait.

Not at all, since I'm sound asleep during it.

The hardware can be productive for free during the hours I'm not awake
to use it.   Hence, we do things like write scripts and then program
them to run during off-hours.    I'd normally suggest that people try
it, but for you, the warning is that it is really, really hard.



> [deletia]

Translation:  Jed trying to avoid acknowledging that his suggested
alternative has to live day-
to-day with large files, and all of the burdens that it entails in its
application life-cycle.

FWIW, I happened to move some data this morning via USB .. does 2
minutes per 1 GB sound about right?   So please remind us again how
large a typical non-desampled HD feature length movie is, so we can
figure out how long your "easier" version of immediate gratification
takes?



> >> =A0 =A0 With a better SoC it doens't have to be that way and you don't=
 have
> >> to make compromises on quality. You can generate a reasonably small fi=
le
> >> that suits both full size and mobile use.
>
> > By which time it will be 2025. =A0 Future hardware speculations are not
> > particularly germane to today's reality and Real World products for
> > how to live today, and for the foreseeable future.
>
> =A0 =A0 I'm not talking about "future hardware".

Well, you're sure as hell not talking about current small, portable &
long battery lived portables.



> =A0 =A0 My own current PMP doesn't have this annoying problem.

Neither does mine.

> Not that I
> am particularly lazy or not have CPU cycles to spare, but I'm glad I
> don't have to worry about futzing with different versions of the same
> content to deal with lame devices.

The amount of extra storage ... and even its data management ... is
IMO trivial.


> =A0 =A0 Apple is nice and pretty and does a few limited things really wel=
l
> but in a limited way. If you've never seen anything else or would not
> bother to seek new things out, it seems impressive. Otherwise, not so
> much.

I never said that it seemed impressive.

In any case, this is an example of  "Better is the Enemy of Good
Enough".   I know that I don't need to be running an Oracle database
for my needs.


>  They have a great approach for a consumer products company. They
> can string along consumers like you until armageddon.

The fringe case - such as running a home TV station - does not ever
justify the needs of the mainstream.

>
> [deletia]
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Will the iphone allow for transcode-less content transfers for
> video for any class of video? If not then, there are still other
> competitors out there with better devices.

Not necessarily true:  it depends upon what the trade-offs are that
come with that additional media capability.   For example, does the
battery life subsequently suck?



> =A0 =A0 =A0It's too bad that Apple is so self limiting really...

They've chosen a different set of trade-offs than what you would
personally prefer.    That's called competition.


> =A0 =A0 =A0No storage. Can't play regular files. Doesn't automate the man=
agement
> of dickering around with those regular files so that your Apple device wi=
ll
> actually allow them.
> =A0 =A0 =A0It's quite a departure from the original sort of mythical iTun=
es
> "experience" that was based on music.

Don't be so sure of that.


> =A0 =A0 =A0Your wife likes that you sort it out for her. That says it all=
 really.

Nope, but nice attempt to project.  She's in IT and generally does
this kind of stuff herself, but we've been busy with other
distractions.  I was aware that she's been meaning to get around to
watching this particular movie for a few months now, so I took a
couple of minutes of my time to put it on as a surprise...kind of like
buying flowers for no particular reason.


-hh