BlackBerry pushed out at AT&T for iPhone?

Friday, August 1st
BlackBerry pushed out at AT&T for iPhone?
Research in Motion and its BlackBerry smartphones on the verge of
falling out of favor at AT&T in exchange for the iPhone, says an
investment note from Credit Suisse's Kulbinder Garcha.
http://digg.com/tech_news/BlackBerry...T_T_for_iPhone

While not committing to a definitive estimate for the scale of the
decline, Garcha believes the loss of marketing effort will be tangible
enough to ultimately cost RIM its overall influence and hardware
sales, even with the expected high-profile launch of the touchscreen
BlackBerry Thunder in the fall and a sales boost forecast to give RIM
55 percent of smartphone sales at Verizon.

About 25 to 30 percent of RIM's phone sales hinge on AT&T, the analyst
says.

---

› See More: BlackBerry pushed out at AT&T for iPhone?

4phun <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:e2bf80ec-93c1-44ca-af1d-ee5a46d8ea64@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> Friday, August 1st
> BlackBerry pushed out at AT&T for iPhone?
> Research in Motion and its BlackBerry smartphones on the verge of
> falling out of favor at AT&T in exchange for the iPhone, says an
> investment note from Credit Suisse's Kulbinder Garcha.
> http://digg.com/tech_news/BlackBerry...T_T_for_iPhone
>
> While not committing to a definitive estimate for the scale of the
> decline, Garcha believes the loss of marketing effort will be tangible
> enough to ultimately cost RIM its overall influence and hardware
> sales, even with the expected high-profile launch of the touchscreen
> BlackBerry Thunder in the fall and a sales boost forecast to give RIM
> 55 percent of smartphone sales at Verizon.
>
> About 25 to 30 percent of RIM's phone sales hinge on AT&T, the analyst
> says.
>

I believe you'll find that the "analyst" is wrong with that figure. By a
large amount.

On Aug 1, 11:36*pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> 4phun <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following innews:e2bf80ec-93c1-44ca-af1d-ee5a46d8ea64@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > Friday, August 1st
> > BlackBerry pushed out at AT&T for iPhone?
> > Research in Motion and its BlackBerry smartphones on the verge of
> > falling out of favor at AT&T in exchange for the iPhone, says an
> > investment note from Credit Suisse's Kulbinder Garcha.
> >http://digg.com/tech_news/BlackBerry...T_T_for_iPhone
>
>
> I believe you'll find that the "analyst" is wrong with that figure. *Bya
> large amount.

Comparative reviews of the iPhone versus Blackberry feature for
feature miss the point really. iPhone is in fact good for the
enterprise, but its even better for human beings.

http://digg.com/apple/Reviews_of_the...Enterprise_Why

4phun <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:d73c4834-50df-434e-839f-60ef30f5881e@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 1, 11:36*pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 4phun <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>> innews:e2bf
> [email protected]:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Friday, August 1st
>> > BlackBerry pushed out at AT&T for iPhone?
>> > Research in Motion and its BlackBerry smartphones on the verge of
>> > falling out of favor at AT&T in exchange for the iPhone, says an
>> > investment note from Credit Suisse's Kulbinder Garcha.
>> >http://digg.com/tech_news/BlackBerry...T_T_for_iPhone
>>
>>
>> I believe you'll find that the "analyst" is wrong with that figure.
>> *By
> a
>> large amount.
>
> Comparative reviews of the iPhone versus Blackberry feature for
> feature miss the point really. iPhone is in fact good for the
> enterprise, but its even better for human beings.
>
> http://digg.com/apple/Reviews_of_the...Enterprise_Why
>

Why did you avoid the fact that you quoted somebodty that doesn't know what
the hell they are talking about? AT&T does not account for 30% of RIM
phone sales.

Nobody cares to see you deflect away from admitting your errors.

At 01 Aug 2008 20:41:00 -0700 4phun wrote:

> Comparative reviews of the iPhone versus Blackberry feature for
> feature miss the point really.

How so? Because it's so "cool" it can be lousy at business tasks because
showing off the Etch-a-sketch app to people is more important than good
Exchange implementation? (That seems to be his treatise!)


> iPhone is in fact good for the
> enterprise, but its even better for human beings.


Human beings that don't need enterprise support, apparently...


> http://digg.com/apple/Reviews_of_the...Enterprise_Why


Strangely enough, the blog your blogger was complaining about:
http://www.robichaux.net/blog/2008/0...ail-device.php,
wasn't comparing the iPhone to Blackberries, but was detailing where the
iPhone's implementation of EAS (Exchange over Activesync) fails miserably.

The author is a Mac user and iPhone owner who carriers a WinMo phone as
well because it works properly with Exchange.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...6&pageNumber=1

The newest iPhone "does not deliver sufficient security for [running] custom applications" commonly used on handhelds in
enterprise settings,

Another concern is battery life, Dulaney said. In Gartner's testing using default settings on the iPhone 3G, the battery
"seldom experienced a full day of use," he said. That happened while using Exchange ActiveSync, some limited browsing and
no telephone calls, he said.

Also, users might like to know that the iPhone does not support the ability to edit attachments in email and that
attachments take time to download, he said. And he noted that e-mail users can't cut and paste details from an e-mail
into an appointment application. "The quickest way to do this on the iPhone today is to write the details down on a piece
of paper and re-enter them," Dulaney wrote.

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:11:40 -0500, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote:

>4phun <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>news:d73c4834-50df-434e-839f-60ef30f5881e@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

>> Comparative reviews of the iPhone versus Blackberry feature for
>> feature miss the point really. iPhone is in fact good for the
>> enterprise, but its even better for human beings.
>>
>> http://digg.com/apple/Reviews_of_the...Enterprise_Why
>>
>
>Why did you avoid the fact that you quoted somebodty that doesn't know what
>the hell they are talking about?

Because 4phun is an iPodFone shill (see <http://tinyurl.com/yn63fo>)
and apologist (see <http://tinyurl.com/5u5jpz>).

I mean -- just go through all his posts here -- everything he posts
here is basically an Apple/iFone kiss-ass session.

He does the bidding of his lord and master Steve Jobs.

Another reason to not trust an iPhone - (or Apple for that matter).


A researcher has discovered a URL buried in the iPhone hardware that
appears to point to an application blacklist - potentially allowing Apple to
retroactively remove applications it decides no longer fit the bill.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...mote_app_wipe/

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:46:35 -0700, "Ness-Net"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Another reason to not trust an iPhone - (or Apple for that matter).
>
>
>A researcher has discovered a URL buried in the iPhone hardware that
>appears to point to an application blacklist - potentially allowing Apple to
>retroactively remove applications it decides no longer fit the bill.
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...mote_app_wipe/


You wouldnt want an app that can turn your Iphone into a secret Sonar
device like Batman used, now would you?

Ron wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:46:35 -0700, "Ness-Net"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Another reason to not trust an iPhone - (or Apple for that matter).
>>
>>
>>A researcher has discovered a URL buried in the iPhone hardware that
>>appears to point to an application blacklist - potentially allowing Apple to
>>retroactively remove applications it decides no longer fit the bill.
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...mote_app_wipe/
>
>
>
> You wouldnt want an app that can turn your Iphone into a secret Sonar
> device like Batman used, now would you?


Or iTrash to iBrick?

At 10 Aug 2008 10:46:35 -0700 Ness-Net wrote:
>
> Another reason to not trust an iPhone - (or Apple for that matter).
>
>
> A researcher has discovered a URL buried in the iPhone hardware
> that appears to point to an application blacklist - potentially allowing
> Apple to retroactively remove applications it decides no longer fit the
bill.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...mote_app_wipe/


What they can do "theoretically" doesn't equal what they are now doing or
will do. I guess it depends on your faith and trust in a company. For all
anyone knows, it's a hidden built-in defense against future malware,
allowing it to be zapped automatically upon execution.

I already have enough reasons not to buy an iPhone without looking for
"hidden" bogeymen! ;-)

Ness-Net wrote:
>
> Another reason to not trust an iPhone - (or Apple for that matter).
>
>
> A researcher has discovered a URL buried in the iPhone hardware that
> appears to point to an application blacklist - potentially allowing
> Apple to retroactively remove applications it decides no longer fit the
> bill.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...mote_app_wipe/
>
1. This isn't news. This remote lock out functionality was disclosed
openly by Apple months ago during the World Developers Conference when
they announced Enterprise functionality. This functionality will be used
by corporate users that want to enforce their internal security policies
on iPhones deployed for business use--just like BlackBerry Enterprise
has done for years.

2. You cross-posted this to a Verizon newsgroup--Since when does Verizon
sell iPhones?

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:g7noag$bpn$1
@aioe.org:

> For all
> anyone knows, it's a hidden built-in defense against future malware,
> allowing it to be zapped automatically upon execution.
>

In that case, Apple won't mind FULL DISCLOSURE of what this URL's intention
is and what they are going to do with it, with proper oversight from an
external 3rd party not connected with the company, right?

I vote for that party to be the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.....

Of course, as usual, Big Brother will say nothing to put the minds at
ease...or explain its asshole arrogant behaviour.


PS - Let's take VERIZON's newsgroup out of this thread. They don't care to
read it.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:26:34 -0400, News <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Ron wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:46:35 -0700, "Ness-Net"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Another reason to not trust an iPhone - (or Apple for that matter).
>>>
>>>
>>>A researcher has discovered a URL buried in the iPhone hardware that
>>>appears to point to an application blacklist - potentially allowing Apple to
>>>retroactively remove applications it decides no longer fit the bill.
>>>
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...mote_app_wipe/
>>
>>
>>
>> You wouldnt want an app that can turn your Iphone into a secret Sonar
>> device like Batman used, now would you?
>
>
>Or iTrash to iBrick?

you know better than that. Just deletes the blackballed app.

>Apple isn't the type of company to ever use it unless needed, so
> relax.

No, just the kind of company to release firmware "updates" that break the
phone. Or unwanted desktop software. No thanks.