Re: NEWS: iPhone spreading around the world.

On May 6, 6:13*pm, Ron <roncliff...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> Looks like Apple will sell 10 million iPhones this year long before
> December

Maybe before July 15. AT&T sent out an email yesterday forbiddiing
AT&T retail associates taking a vacation or days off from June 15 to
July 15. They want all hands on hand and ready to cover a big launch
of something. The smart money notes that the only other time AT&T did
this was last year on the same dates when the Apple iPhone was first
released. Could there be something new from Apple that will drive a
large mass of customers into AT&T stores the last half of June?

At 07 May 2008 19:07:21 -0700 4phun wrote:
> Could there be something new from Apple that will drive a
> large mass of customers into AT&T stores the last half of June?


An angry mob of disgruntled current iPhone owners storming AT&T stores when
AT&T drops the price of 1st-gen iPhones to $99 with 2-year contract to make
way for the new model? ;-)


(Just kidding!)

4phun wrote:
> On May 6, 6:13 pm, Ron <roncliff...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like Apple will sell 10 million iPhones this year long before
>> December
>
> Maybe before July 15. AT&T sent out an email yesterday forbiddiing
> AT&T retail associates taking a vacation or days off from June 15 to
> July 15. They want all hands on hand and ready to cover a big launch
> of something.

It's the HTC Touch Diamond that's going to launch. All the experts say
that the Touch Diamond out iPhones the upcoming 3G iPhone. WiFi,
Weather, FM, 3.2 MP camera, TouchFlo interface, and integrated GPS. Most
importantly, it's a true PDA with tens of thousands of applications
available. OTOH, it's probably not going to have as good a browser as
the iPhone, and the built in flash is only 4GB (but expandable).

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:fvtvkr$8pd$1@aioe.org:

> An angry mob of disgruntled current iPhone owners storming AT&T stores
> when AT&T drops the price of 1st-gen iPhones to $99 with 2-year
> contract to make way for the new model? ;-)
>
>
> (Just kidding!)
>
>
>

I don't think this is a joke. The new iPhone is only $199 trying to move
them. It would make sense to sell the warehouses full of 2G obsoletes at
$99, or even less.

For the price the vendors are going to charge for the simplest 3rd party
programs, they oughta give the damned things away, much like printers
just to sell you jet ink!

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:BIvUj.2039$7k7.1026
@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:

> OTOH, it's probably not going to have as good a browser as
> the iPhone

http://securityevaluators.com/iphone/
Yeah, great...

I'm also curious as to why Apple got University of Washington's Emerging
Technology group to remove this from their own website:

"University of Washington's Emerging Technology group published notes from
Apple's Developing Web Sites for iPhone session from WWDC last week. The
blog entry provides some interesting information for users and web
developers alike about the iPhone's capabilities, and has been summarized
below.

Apple listed what the iPhone offers for websites:
- the page view feature lets you look at multiple websites and documents by
scrolling thru them one after another
- Full PDF support
- double tap for zoom in
- one finger as a mouse used to
-- pan page
-- press and hold to display the information bubble
- two fingers as a mouse used to
-- pinch content to shrink - zoom out
-- pan page
-- scroll wheel events
- new telephone links allows you to integrate phone calls directly from
your webpage. remember this is only on safari.
- built in google maps client for integrated mapping from your website


A few iPhone size limitations / restrictions are noted in developing for
the iPhone:
- 10MB max html size for web page
- Javascript limited to 5 seconds run time
- Javascript allocations limited to 10MB
- 8 documents maximum loaded on the iPhone due to page view limitations
- Quicktime used for audio and video


The notes confirm that there is no Flash and no Java support, and Apple
recommends the following design considerations:
- separate html and css
- use well structured and valid html
- size images appropriately dont rely on browser scaling
- tile small images in backgrounds, dont use large backgroung images
- iPhone supports both EDGE and WiFi. EDGE pipe is smaller than WIFI pipe
so think about bandwidth when developing.
- XHTML mobile documents supported
- stylesheet device width:480px
- apply different css for the iPhone. For example displaying a one column
page for iphone vs a 3 column page on a desktop.
- there are no scroll bars or resize knobs. the iphone will automatically
expand the content
- Avoid framesets, scrollable frames are automatically expanded to fit the
content
- iPhone User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en)
AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1A538a Safari/419.3
- Video: H.264 baseline profile level 3.0 up to 640¡¿480 fps
"

I found it quoted in a digg.com forum on the iphone browser capabilities
and guidelines website. Why did Apple want it removed from the original
website, making it look like a lawyer-induced coverup?

Are all these limitations and omissions true for the iPhone Safari browser?

What about these?:
http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/552
"The exploit developed by Independent Security Evaluators takes advantage
of a number of security weaknesses in the iPhone, the company stated. The
worst issues is that all the device processes run with full administrator
privileges. Moreover, the phone does not use address layout randomization
and non-executable heaps to make exploitation more difficult, the firm's
analysis said."
Have they patched these flaws, too?

How many users reading this newsgroup never heard of this flaw or installed
the patch? How many much-more-naive users who have no idea even what
usenet is have patched their boxes? I've asked many and they proudly, like
good little Apple soldiers, tell me iPhone is perfect and noone ever
trashed a Mac.

The browser is just a simple Webkit clone. It isn't the rocket science
Apple would like you to believe.'

On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:03:34 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
>news:fvtvkr$8pd$1@aioe.org:
>
>> An angry mob of disgruntled current iPhone owners storming AT&T stores
>> when AT&T drops the price of 1st-gen iPhones to $99 with 2-year
>> contract to make way for the new model? ;-)
>>
>>
>> (Just kidding!)
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't think this is a joke. The new iPhone is only $199 trying to move
>them. It would make sense to sell the warehouses full of 2G obsoletes at
>$99, or even less.
>


A fictious scenario. Stores are running out of iPhones, and no more
are in the pipeline. No need for closeout pricing in the U.S.

On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:40:28 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:BIvUj.2039$7k7.1026
>@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
>> OTOH, it's probably not going to have as good a browser as
>> the iPhone
>
>http://securityevaluators.com/iphone/
>Yeah, great...
>
>I'm also curious as to why Apple got University of Washington's Emerging
>Technology group to remove this from their own website:

Because Apple charges for that information as part of attending
a Developers Conference.

No different than John Wiley getting upset if a Chemistry textbook
of theirs was posted on the web.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A986A41A5FECnoonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
> news:fvtvkr$8pd$1@aioe.org:
>
>> An angry mob of disgruntled current iPhone owners storming AT&T stores
>> when AT&T drops the price of 1st-gen iPhones to $99 with 2-year
>> contract to make way for the new model? ;-)
>>
>>
>> (Just kidding!)
>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't think this is a joke. The new iPhone is only $199 trying to move
> them. It would make sense to sell the warehouses full of 2G obsoletes at
> $99, or even less.

The whole "$199 for 3G iPhone" is a ridiculous internet rumor. I VERY much
doubt AT&T is going to sell it for that. Perhaps the _current_ iPhone will
dip to $199 when the new 3G version comes out, but for all the iPhone hype,
why would they sell it for the same or less than, say, a Tilt, when past
experience shows them if they make enough noise about it before launch, they
can charge whatever they like and watch the sucke.. er, um, lemmin.., ah,
um, "buyers" line up.

A low-ball price on the new iPhone greatly devalues both it, and the 2G
version, in one fell swoop, and frankly, is a very un-Apple-like strategy.
Look at the iPod line, for example- while todays iPods are far more featured
than prior models, they sell for the same price as older units did. So a
"Nano", which today has far more memory and plays video, is still a $150-200
piece, just like the first was Nano was years ago.

A current model iPhone, at least in the US, is going to be "$400" or so,
regardless because that's the current high-end that phones command in the
US, and Apple isn't going to let it become a $200 phone like a Blackberry or
WinMo phone.

Just my opinion, of course, so take it for what it's worth...

> For the price the vendors are going to charge for the simplest 3rd party
> programs, they oughta give the damned things away, much like printers
> just to sell you jet ink!

Again, the iPod had been very successful with a "pay me now AND pay me
later" hardware/iTunes strategy, so why would Apple rock that boat?

Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:0e7624ldanq5j5pa6kqnhbdl85o9cilfn9@4ax.com:

> A fictious scenario. Stores are running out of iPhones, and no more
> are in the pipeline. No need for closeout pricing in the U.S.
>
>

How many do you want, today?

Locked or unlocked?

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:fvv70t$nsn$1
@aioe.org:

> The whole "$199 for 3G iPhone" is a ridiculous internet rumor.

I would think it would be in response to the jailbreaking, causing a failed
marketing strategy that failed miserably. Sellphone companies have a long
history of subsidized phones. Why should the now-older iPhone be any
different. Googly-eyed buyers are no longer staring longingly with their
noses pressed up against the door glass panting to get into ATT stores.....

I would have said $350, but that may be dreaming in today's DEPRESSION
market.

Ron <ronclifford@peoplepc.com> wrote in
news:1h7624h12e1g1rptfcosh3ago62qtvhmu2@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:40:28 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:BIvUj.2039$7k7.1026
>>@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>> OTOH, it's probably not going to have as good a browser as
>>> the iPhone
>>
>>http://securityevaluators.com/iphone/
>>Yeah, great...
>>
>>I'm also curious as to why Apple got University of Washington's Emerging
>>Technology group to remove this from their own website:
>
> Because Apple charges for that information as part of attending
> a Developers Conference.
>
> No different than John Wiley getting upset if a Chemistry textbook
> of theirs was posted on the web.
>
>

Apple charges for the specification lists? That IS arrogance!

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:BIvUj.2039$7k7.1026@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...

> It's the HTC Touch Diamond that's going to launch. All the experts say
> that the Touch Diamond out iPhones the upcoming 3G iPhone. WiFi, Weather,
> FM, 3.2 MP camera, TouchFlo interface, and integrated GPS. Most
> importantly, it's a true PDA with tens of thousands of applications
> available. OTOH, it's probably not going to have as good a browser as the
> iPhone, and the built in flash is only 4GB (but expandable).

Not neccessarily. While WM6.1's native IE Mobile browser seems to be a bit
of a kludge- (they've added zoom in/out like the iPhone', but under that
it's the same old rendering engine) HTC is planning on including Opera
Mobile 9.5 on many of the upcoming HTC phones, which is a desktop-quality
browser that supports Flash. (MS, meanwhile, has promised an IE 6
compatible browser for WM7.)

For those who can't wait for better browsers, Opera Mini 4 already has
excellent zoom/pan rendering (a la iPhone), and works on virtually any
Java-capable phone in existence. For WinMo (and soon for Symbial 60), the
new Skyfire (www.skyfire.com) "browser", now in beta, supports Flash- it'll
even play video from sites like www.hulu.com, or in2tv.aol.com, so I can get
a "Man From UNCLE" fix from just about anywhere! ;-) Skyfire isn't a true
browser in the traditional sense- it's a thin client app that works through
Skyfire's proxy, so the real rendering work is done on Skyfire's servers,
and the output of that is sent to, and displayed on, the device. (Much like
Opera Mini.) I suspect Skyfire will eventually charge for use of the
servers if/when it ever comes out of beta, like Bitstream's "Thunderhawk"
proxy-based browser does.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9898553D640noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:fvv70t$nsn$1
> @aioe.org:
>
>> The whole "$199 for 3G iPhone" is a ridiculous internet rumor.
>
> I would think it would be in response to the jailbreaking, causing a
> failed
> marketing strategy that failed miserably.

I disagree- it was brilliant. Sell ALL iPhones at an above-cost inflated
rate, so if one is unlocked and "misses" activation on the partner carrier,
you make a pile of money. If it's activated on the partner carrier you make
two piles of money. Where's the "failure" in that?

A worse scenario (for Apple) would be heavily discounted iPhones- then AT&T
customers could snag one cheap, keep using their old phone, and unlock the
iPhone and sell it on eBay for a profit, which AT&T wouldn't mind, since
they'd still have the user under 2-year contract, but might be able to get
out of paying Apple their cut if the phone is never activated on the AT&T
network via iTunes.

> Sellphone companies have a long
> history of subsidized phones. Why should the now-older iPhone be any
> different.

Subsidized phones were an attempt to make the upfront cost of cellular
cheaper and lower the barrier to entry. If people are willing to line up
around the block for an unsubsidized phone, why should the carrier subsidize
it? (Particularly in the goofy Apple revenue-sharing arrangement- AT&T is
essentially giving the "subsidy" to Apple in the form of commissions.)

> Googly-eyed buyers are no longer staring longingly with their
> noses pressed up against the door glass panting to get into ATT
> stores.....

True. But wait until the 3G model hits- to paraphrase the sage Yogi Berra,
it'll be Deja Vu all over again! The same Apple fans who ponied up $500
last time have had over a year to save their pennies for the next model.





>
> I would have said $350, but that may be dreaming in today's DEPRESSION
> market.
>

Todd Allcock wrote:
> The same Apple fans who ponied
> up $500 last time have had over a year to save their pennies for the
> next model.

Walmart is reporting a run Top Raman soup. heh heh heh

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in
news:fvvnca$si0$1@aioe.org:

>> Googly-eyed buyers are no longer staring longingly with their
>> noses pressed up against the door glass panting to get into ATT
>> stores.....
>
> True. But wait until the 3G model hits- to paraphrase the sage Yogi
> Berra, it'll be Deja Vu all over again! The same Apple fans who
> ponied up $500 last time have had over a year to save their pennies
> for the next model.
>
>
>

I don't know about that. I've met quite a few who're not so rosey-glassed
into being screwed to another pocket box office than they first were.