Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-88CE63.12564117102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> -
>

As always, you just don't get it....

Example:
Blackberry = business tool
iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
future)

Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

As usual.

"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> As always, you just don't get it....
>
> Example:
> Blackberry = business tool
> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
> future)

it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?

no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
point in the game.

> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.

What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
them.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>


Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an actual clue.

Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus percent
of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

They won't give a **** if 3rd party apps are loaded. The DEVICE is flawed.

You can go on and on and on like you do - you have less than ZERO credibility at this point.

Every post continues to proves it - again and again.

Like this one... Just another fantasy based wish from a deluded, fanatic fanboy.

In news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> typed:
> "Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> As always, you just don't get it....
>>
>> Example:
>> Blackberry = business tool
>> iPhone = cool toy - NOT a business tool (unless radically changed in the
>> future)
>
> it was radically changed about 8 hours ago. didn't you get the memo?
>
> no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone they
> will be miniscule by this time next year. all business software
> developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that is the future
> of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance against apple at this
> point in the game.
>
>> Bottom line, your prediction based on today's facts is stupid.
>
> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
> them.

Which is most likely within 4.5 years:

1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.

2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
users of non-Apple computers.

I would think number 2.

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> > What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
> > is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
> > I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
> > them.
>
> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>
> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>
> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
> users of non-Apple computers.
>
> I would think number 2.

but those aren't the only 2 choices.

3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.

4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.

5) and many more...

most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
>>> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
>>> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
>>> them.
>>
>> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>>
>> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>>
>> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
>> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
>> users of non-Apple computers.
>>
>> I would think number 2.
>
> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>
> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>
> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>
> 5) and many more...
>
> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
was 5 years.
Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?

And tell us why Google would need apple ?
Goggle has more money then apple.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
>> > is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
>> > I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
>> > them.
>>
>> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>>
>> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>>
>> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
>> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers to
>> users of non-Apple computers.
>>
>> I would think number 2.
>
> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>
> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>
> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>
> 5) and many more...
>
> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:XuzRi.341794$dA7.147612@newsfe16.lga...
> In news:colalovesmacs-C9FB72.20143517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
>> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>> What? Apple has totally altered markets before beyond recognition, this
>>>> is no different. Sure it takes awhile for people to catch up with what
>>>> I'm saying, but they always do when they see what is happening around
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Which is most likely within 4.5 years:
>>>
>>> 1. All cell phone users will have iPhones with ATT plans.
>>>
>>> 2. There be about the same ratio of iPhone users with ATT cell plans to
>>> other cell phone users as there are currently users of Apple computers
>>> to
>>> users of non-Apple computers.
>>>
>>> I would think number 2.
>>
>> but those aren't the only 2 choices.
>>
>> 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>>
>> 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>>
>> 5) and many more...
>>
>> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.
> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
down. Then they got AT&T

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.

Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.

and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

-

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
> >
> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
> >
> > 5) and many more...
> >
> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>
> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.

80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
iPhone.

> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought it
> was 5 years.

Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
iPhone contract, etc.

> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?

currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.

so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
make the cut.

we'll see.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.

you seem not to understand the point of a board of directors.

> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.

yup, but not much less in relatively liquid assets (cash & cash equivalents,
short term investments, and net receivables). and google has more long term
investments. and a lot less liabilities. i.e. if google *wanted* a higher
cash position, they'd have it.

You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
iphone and apple.

Your starting to sound like John Navas.


"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> >> enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>> >
>> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> > WiFi.
>> > How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought
>> > it
>> > was 5 years.
>> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>> >
>> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the iphone
>> down. Then they got AT&T
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.
>
> verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/v...e-iphone-deal/
>
> i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules, they
> don't... so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a chance
> later on.

Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?

Your so full of ****.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>> >
>> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>> >
>> > 5) and many more...
>> >
>> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth devices.
>>
>> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with WiFi.
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple. They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once they
> get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless they
> plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice transmissions,
> not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful features of the
> iPhone.
>
>> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I thought
>> it
>> was 5 years.
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months of
> course. Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a fiddle
> for better pricing, or play them off Verizon which is desperate for the
> iPhone contract, etc.
>
>> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.
>
> so considering Steve is a no-nonsense kind of guy CDMA might not ever
> make the cut.
>
> we'll see.

Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

Then why is it said Google is getting into the cell phone market. By your
thinking "Steve" would say no to Google" Fact is I don't think Google gives
a crap what apple thinks.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -