Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition

On Jun 26, 3:08 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sure, its not going to appeal to too many of those, just because it has no keyboard.

but...it does have a keyboard. a qwerty keyboard, right there. its on
the screen. still a keyboard.

> The problem is more that the screen is filled with the
> touchscreen keyboard on those tiny screens and so you
> cant read the email you are replying too at the same time.

that may be true. but i havent tried it yet. you have, then?

> And anyone with a clue uses favourites with browsing anyway

interesting. and how do you enter in these favorites in the first
place? dunno about you, but i often type in new URLs that friends tell
me about.

> > However, most of those people don't use the media player
> > functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead.
>
> That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.

i dont think its wrong. i think even people who have cell phones w/
media players still use ipods. why? because the ipod performs its task
better. why? because its easier to use.


> > And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared
> > with the cost of an iPod + a phone.
>
> Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones.

why? when you buy an iphone, you essentially get an ipod. why? the
defining characteristics of the ipod are its style and its ease of
use. both of which are present in the iphone version.


sm

---

› See More: Time Magazine: The iPhone Dials Up the Competition

On Jun 26, 4:38 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The media player function is,
>
> Nope, because that wont kill a damned thing given that there are hordes of
> phones with media players and cameras that have been around for years now.

most phones apps suck, including media players. if my phone sported
one, i wouldnt use it -- i dont want more crapware on my computer to
load it, and it doesnt sync w/ itunes. my ipod does. so id continue
using my ultraslim ipod nano.

> > Not to mention just the slick all-around UI, for everything
> > from SMS to contact management to conference calling.
>
> Sure, but the UI on most phones is already quite adequate in those areas.

HA! funny. good one.

> There's plenty of other phones like that now.

theyre plenty of phones w/ many of the iphone features -- but none w/
all.

> Even later to market. Bet its too late and they never do as well as the ipod did.

of course. this is a different product than an ipod -- thats like
saying AppleTV wont sell as many units as ipods. pointless. first, as
a mobile pc/PDA its much more expensive than an ipod, and is thusly in
a different product category..not a whimsical $79 purchase. second,
its tied to a contract. third, its tied to various packages, limited
in conjunction w/ their data partner.

sm

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote

>>> Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.

>> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media player

> and yet, there were so many piss poor implementations of those few controls, until apple.

What I said in the bit you chose to delete from the quoting. Here it is again.

> and the ipod design is rather elegant and well done in that regard.

And its not relevant to that claim about the market in a similar
state that I was clearly commenting on there, in more that
you deleted from the quoting and I have restored at the top.

>> Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now and most of those
>> already have a media player now too if they use one much.

> i have never had a media player on any of my cellphones, first one in 1999.

I wasnt talking about media players in cellphones there.

> my phones continue to be small, cluttered, difficult
> to use devices that often leave me frustrated.

There's plenty that arent, most obviously with the Nokias that do have a decent UI.

>> Hordes of them have a media player/phone/camera combined already.

> and w/ those implementations, most (like previous mp3 players) suck.

No they dont, particularly the Nokias.

> there is a definite market for easy-to-use devices.

Yes, but the iphone isnt the only one of those,
its in fact very late to market with one that is that.

> the functionality neednt be new, but the implementation thereof does.

Pity that that isnt new either. Its just a bit better on the touch
screen side. There's plenty of other touchscreens out there now.

And its significantly worse in some areas like using the ****ed AT&T EDGE
network too. Most of the rest are GSM 3G network, where they should all be.

On 6/28/07 1:55 PM, in article [email protected],
"Screw the iPhone (diot)" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:06:36 -0500, George Kerby
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/07 9:21 PM, in article [email protected],
>> "Screw the iPhone (diot)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:20:23 -0500, George Kerby
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/07 4:19 PM, in article
>>>> [email protected], "Michelle Steiner"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Screw the i(diot)Phone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm so sorry, it appears you are on the rag. That must explain why
>>>>>> you are so touchy when someone disagrees with your rose colored view
>>>>>> of stupid ass PHONE. Damn, you are one sad little person.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only opinion I've expressed is about you and your hypocrisy,
>>>>> dogbreath; I haven't expressed any opinion about the phone itself, moron.
>>>>>
>>>> Don't insult my German Shepherd.
>>>>
>>>> His breath doesn't smell of reeking **** like this asshole.
>>>
>>> You seem awfully familiar with the smell of your dog's breath and
>>> feces. Does the ASPCA know what you are up to?
>>>
>> **** off Zero.
>>
>> <ding>
>>
>>
>> (Watch this folks)
>
> Watch what? You blow your dog while talking on your i(diot)Phone? Or
> is Michelle going to show us her "extra" equipment? <shudder>
>
Up yours, drooling canine!

<ding>

Here goes...

On Jun 26, 6:20 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nope, there are **** all silly enough to have
> both a phone thats a media player and an ipod.

rubbish. people arent going to give up their itunes playlists and easy-
as-pie syncing, just to use their latest random cellphone's media
player. it makes far more sense to stick to what ya know, and keep
using your managed itunes system.

cell phone makers have shown they arent very good at making media
players that people care about. and certainly never one people would
abandon itunes in favor of. why learn a whole new system when you have
one that works very well?

> > If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do),
>
> No they dont.

but they do. see ipod sales. its about the UI, the syncing, and the
style. ipod != "random media player"


> > The iPhone is designed so much better than other
> > phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity.
>
> Easy to claim. It remains to be seen how valid that claim actually is.

the track record is in apples favor, here. see Mac, and iPod. they
would appear to know how to "do" design. popular design. pay-a-premium
design (tho now of course, due to immense popularity & mass
production, ipods are down to trinket cost).

> > Most people barely know how to use their phones to begin with.
>
> Most can use it for what they bought it for.

....which has historically been talking. but for people looking to
consolidate devices, which is who i believe the iphone is marketed to,
then "what they bought it for" becomes talking, media, internet.

> > It's a phone designed for people who buy *iPods*.
>
> Pity so many buy phones with media players and cameras too.

pfft. media players & cameras are bundled trinkets in today's
cellphones. the majority of everyday phones w/ them are not purchased
due to their inclusion; these phones were bought (or promo-ed) for
talking. not so w/ iPhone.


sm

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> ZnU <[email protected]> wrote

>>> OK, but unlike for the Blackberry, e-mail is not the "killer app" for the iPhone.

>> There is no "killer app" for the iPhone, there are hordes of phones
>> with media players and cameras that have been around for years now.

>>> The media player function is,

>> Nope, because that wont kill a damned thing given
>> that there are hordes of phones with media players
>> and cameras that have been around for years now.

> most phones apps suck, including media players.

I cant see too many spending $5/600 and locking themselves
into a 2 year contract and a ****ed EDGE network for that.

Specially when those that do care about a decent media
player UI will already have an ipod or a properly implemented
phone with integraged media player like a Nokia.

> if my phone sported one, i wouldnt use it -- i dont
> want more crapware on my computer to load it,

You dont need that with a properly implemented
media player, it appears as a drive on the computer.

Thats always been one major downside with the ipod,
it needs its own rather ****ed crapware to load it and
even that cant copy stuff from one ipod to another either.

> and it doesnt sync w/ itunes. my ipod does.
> so id continue using my ultraslim ipod nano.

So you are unlikely to piss $5/600+ and a 2 year
$50/90 per month against the wall on an iphone now.

>>> Not to mention just the slick all-around UI, for everything
>>> from SMS to contact management to conference calling.

>> Sure, but the UI on most phones is already quite adequate in those areas.

> HA! funny. good one.

HA!! pathetic. silly one.

>> There's plenty of other phones like that now.

> theyre plenty of phones w/ many of the iphone features -- but none w/ all.

Wrong. The Nokia N series has even more like built in GPS too.

And plenty have a much better camera than the iphone,
and a removable battery, and a sim and memory cards too.

>> Even later to market. Bet its too late and they never do as well as the ipod did.

> of course. this is a different product than an ipod

What I said in what you carefully deleted from the quoting.

> -- thats like saying AppleTV wont sell as many units as ipods. pointless.

Pity he was the one mindlessly claiming the iphone have as much effect
on the market as the ipod did, in the quoting you carefully deleted.

> first, as a mobile pc/PDA its much more expensive than an ipod, and
> is thusly in a different product category..not a whimsical $79 purchase.

What I said in what you carefully deleted from the quoting.

> second, its tied to a contract. third, its tied to various
> packages, limited in conjunction w/ their data partner.

What I said in what you carefully deleted from the quoting.

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>> Sure, its not going to appeal to too many
>> of those, just because it has no keyboard.

> but...it does have a keyboard. a qwerty keyboard,
> right there. its on the screen. still a keyboard.

What I said in the next bit.

>> The problem is more that the screen is filled with the
>> touchscreen keyboard on those tiny screens and so you
>> cant read the email you are replying too at the same time.

> that may be true. but i havent tried it yet. you have, then?

Dont need to on that particular question, nothing else is even possible.

And it cant cut and paste either, pretty ****ed with email.

>> And anyone with a clue uses favourites with browsing anyway

> interesting. and how do you enter in these favorites in the first place?

Hit the tool that saves the current site as a favorite.

Even you should be able to manage that if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> dunno about you, but i often type in new URLs that friends tell me about.

More fool you, I click on the link they include in the email,
even if I am talking to them on the phone at the time.

Leaves manually typing it in for dead.

>>> However, most of those people don't use the media player
>>> functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead.

>> That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.

> i dont think its wrong. i think even people who have
> cell phones w/ media players still use ipods.

Only the fools.

> why? because the ipod performs its task
> better. why? because its easier to use.

Pity that you have to fart around with two separate devices.

Anyone with a clue gets a cellphone with an
integrated media player with a decent UI instead.

>>> And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared with the cost of an iPod + a phone.

>> Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones.

> why?

Because most arent stupid enough to have two separate devices.

> when you buy an iphone, you essentially get an ipod. why?
> the defining characteristics of the ipod are its style and its
> ease of use. both of which are present in the iphone version.

You dont know that yet.

And few will be silly enough to piss $5/600 and $50/90/month on a 2
year contract against the wall when they already have an ipod anyway.

On Jun 28, 4:45 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What I said in what you carefully deleted from the quoting.

....drop the paranoia thing. theres no careful deleting here, i just
hit reply, quote your latest statement, and respond to it. if there is
confusion, it may be your posts are convoluted and difficult to work
with.

> You dont need that with a properly implemented
> media player, it appears as a drive on the computer.

....oh, and it syncs w/ my music library telepathically, sans software?
how does it load up my desired playlists?

> > and it doesnt sync w/ itunes. my ipod does.
> > so id continue using my ultraslim ipod nano.
>
> So you are unlikely to piss $5/600+ and a 2 year
> $50/90 per month against the wall on an iphone now.

not sure what youre referring to. i said i wouldnt use my cellphone's
(hypothetical) media player, because it doesnt sync as well as my
nano; both of which fit in my pocket.

however, id still prefer one device, if it did. $50/90 is less and not
much more than what i spend now on my non-data plan. 500 isnt bad for
a PDA, mobile email, mobile full web browser, ipod, and cell phone. so
yeah, id pay that. except, i dont buy first versions. but in theory,
or down the road, you bet.

> > HA! funny. good one.
>
> HA!! pathetic. silly one.

...? wheres the counter point... i decried typical cell UIs, and youve
already agreed its commonly bad. so why is that silly?

> > theyre plenty of phones w/ many of the iphone features -- but none w/ all.
>
> Wrong. The Nokia N series has even more like built in GPS too.

does the nokia does not have non-linear email, as the iphone? and rich
UIs inline w/ my mac experience? nope. i stand by it -- there are many
good features out there, but no other product has everything the
iphone promises. i do hope they add GPS in v2 tho.

sm

On Jun 28, 4:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hit the tool that saves the current site as a favorite.
>
> Even you should be able to manage that if someone was actually
> stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

huh? whats w/ the smackdown, jack? further, if someone in my carpool
is talking about a url, what tool should i "hit" to save their words
into a favorite? i am very intrigued by this tool.

> More fool you, I click on the link they include in the email,
> even if I am talking to them on the phone at the time.

oh? so your chums will email you a link, even when theyre sitting
right next to you in the car, w/o a computer? so they actually load
their cell's email program, somehow forward a url in it, and you check
that in your cell, click it, and added it as a favorite -- all instead
of speaking? wow. very organized system you have in place. impressive.

> > why? because the ipod performs its task
> > better. why? because its easier to use.
>
> Pity that you have to fart around with two separate devices.

two devices, yes. but two devices that each do one thing really well.
thus, no farting.

if i could one device to do them both -- again, really well -- i
would. and it so would you, by your own admission (to you, the nokia N
performs these taks very well. to others...perhaps not).

> integrated media player with a decent UI instead.

why settle for decent? i dont mind paying for better than decent. see
ipod success.

> Because most arent stupid enough to have two separate devices.

actually, apparently most are "stupid" enough -- i think the number of
cell + primary-mp3 (non-stupid, by your rules) users are much smaller
than you think; and certainly do not qualify for the 'most'
designator.


> > when you buy an iphone, you essentially get an ipod. why?
> > the defining characteristics of the ipod are its style and its
> > ease of use. both of which are present in the iphone version.
>
> You dont know that yet.

based on apples track record, its a safe bet. they arent going to re-
invent a new ipod UI for the iphone. and it certainly hasnt been
mentioned in the early reviews if they had. so im going to stick w/
that assertion.

> And few will be silly enough to piss $5/600 and $50/90/month on a 2
> year contract against the wall when they already have an ipod anyway.

if youre right, then this will all just be an unpleasant memory years
from now.....a silly fad that lasted, what, 6 mos? yep.


sm

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>> Nope, there are **** all silly enough to have
>> both a phone thats a media player and an ipod.

> rubbish. people arent going to give up their itunes playlists and easy-
> as-pie syncing, just to use their latest random cellphone's media player.

There's plenty that do playlists too, in fact almost all of them do.

Plenty that are just as easy to synch too.

> it makes far more sense to stick to what ya know,
> and keep using your managed itunes system.

There's **** all likely to piss $5/600+ and a 2 year $50/90
per month against the wall on an iphone just for that.

And plenty dont even like iTunes too.

> cell phone makers have shown they arent very good
> at making media players that people care about.

Easy to claim...

> and certainly never one people would abandon itunes in favor of.

Easy to claim...

> why learn a whole new system when you have one that works very well?

Why piss $5/600+ and a 2 year $50/90 per month against the wall
on an iphone just to keep that ? And end with a rather ****ty camera,
a completely ****ed cellphone network, no way to run 3rd party
apps, no removable battery, no sim, etc etc etc.

>>> If you want an iPod as opposed to a "music player" (and most people do),

>> No they dont.

> but they do. see ipod sales.

See the sales of all those phones with media players and non ipod media players.

> its about the UI, the syncing, and the style. ipod != "random media player"

None of the are JUST random media players and most
dont mindlessly play the same playlist all the time anyway.

>>> The iPhone is designed so much better than other
>>> phones that it will offset any lack of familiarity.

>> Easy to claim. It remains to be seen how valid that claim actually is.

> the track record is in apples favor, here.

Nope.

> see Mac,

Useless, sweet **** all of the market even bother with it.

> and iPod. they would appear to know how to "do" design.

Doesnt mean that it ever takes off tho. Look at the Newton.

> popular design.

The Mac and Newton clearly arent.

> pay-a-premium design (tho now of course, due to immense
> popularity & mass production, ipods are down to trinket cost).

And the Mac and the Newton never were except when
the Newtons were being flushed where they belonged.

>>> Most people barely know how to use their phones to begin with.

>> Most can use it for what they bought it for.

> ...which has historically been talking. but for people looking to
> consolidate devices, which is who i believe the iphone is marketed
> to, then "what they bought it for" becomes talking, media, internet.

Plenty of phone can do that, YEARS before the iphone.

>>> It's a phone designed for people who buy *iPods*.

>> Pity so many buy phones with media players and cameras too.

> pfft.

You're not supposed to fart in usenet.

> media players & cameras are bundled trinkets in today's cellphones.

Nope, plenty have enough of a clue to want that stuff in one device.

> the majority of everyday phones w/ them are not purchased due to
> their inclusion; these phones were bought (or promo-ed) for talking.

Wrong with the high end phones and pdas.

> not so w/ iPhone.

Pity its so pathetically late to market.

Pity its on such a ****ed cellphone network.

Pity about how ****ed the camera is.

Pity that it doesnt even have a removable battery.

Pity that it cant even use cards.

Pity it doesnt even have a GPS.

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>> What I said in what you carefully deleted from the quoting.

> ...drop the paranoia thing.

Work on your bull****ting 'skills'

> theres no careful deleting here, i just hit reply,
> quote your latest statement, and respond to it.

Liar, you deleted quite a bit of the quoting.

> if there is confusion, it may be your posts
> are convoluted and difficult to work with.

Never ever could bull**** and lie it way out of a wet paper bag.

> most phones apps suck, including media players.
> if my phone sported one, i wouldnt use it -- i dont
> want more crapware on my computer to load it,

>> You dont need that with a properly implemented
>> media player, it appears as a drive on the computer.

> ...oh, and it syncs w/ my music library telepathically, sans software?

Nope, using the file manager you use for everything else.

> how does it load up my desired playlists?

Using the file manager you use for everything else.

>>> and it doesnt sync w/ itunes. my ipod does.
>>> so id continue using my ultraslim ipod nano.

>> So you are unlikely to piss $5/600+ and a 2 year
>> $50/90 per month against the wall on an iphone now.

> not sure what youre referring to.

The cost of the iphone.

> i said i wouldnt use my cellphone's (hypothetical)
> media player, because it doesnt sync as well as
> my nano; both of which fit in my pocket.

And you are unlikely to to piss $5/600+ and a 2 year $50/90
per month against the wall on an iphone now, like I said.

> however, id still prefer one device, if it did. $50/90 is less and
> not much more than what i spend now on my non-data plan.

More fool you.

> 500 isnt bad for a PDA, mobile email,
> mobile full web browser, ipod, and cell phone.

Pity about when you already have all that capability.

> so yeah, id pay that. except, i dont buy first versions.
> but in theory, or down the road, you bet.

Yeah, but you're just another Apple lemming.

>>>>> Not to mention just the slick all-around UI, for everything
>>>>> from SMS to contact management to conference calling.

>>>> Sure, but the UI on most phones is already quite adequate in those areas.

>>> HA! funny. good one.

>> HA!! pathetic. silly one.

> ..? wheres the counter point...

Where was yours ?

> i decried typical cell UIs,

And I decried your pathetic excuse for juvenile bull****.

> and youve already agreed its commonly bad.

No I didnt. I in fact said the exact opposite.

> so why is that silly?

You have absolutely no idea eh ? Yeah, right.

>>> theyre plenty of phones w/ many of the iphone features -- but none w/ all.

>> Wrong. The Nokia N series has even more like built in GPS too.

> does the nokia does not have non-linear email, as the iphone?
> and rich UIs inline w/ my mac experience? nope.

Does the iphone have a removable battery, a sim, a decent camera,
GSM 3G, video capture, cut and paste etc etc etc ? Nope.

> i stand by it --

You can stand wherever you like, on your head if you like --

> there are many good features out there, but no
> other product has everything the iphone promises.

There's plenty that have lots more than the iphone
has, like a removable battery, a sim, a decent camera,
GSM 3G, video capture, cut and paste etc etc etc

> i do hope they add GPS in v2 tho.

Pity about all the rest thats missing.

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> tony <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> And anyone with a clue uses favourites with browsing anyway

>>> interesting. and how do you enter in these favorites in the first place?

>> Hit the tool that saves the current site as a favorite.

>> Even you should be able to manage that if someone was actually
>> stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> huh? whats w/ the smackdown, jack?

Just what you deserve, jill.

> further, if someone in my carpool is talking about a url,
> what tool should i "hit" to save their words into a favorite?

The voice recorder, child.

And anyone with a clue gets urls from emails anyway, even
if they are talking to the individual that is talking about it.

> i am very intrigued by this tool.

Its clearly too hard for someone as stupid as you.

>>> dunno about you, but i often type in new URLs that friends tell me about.

>> More fool you, I click on the link they include in the email,
>> even if I am talking to them on the phone at the time.

> oh? so your chums will email you a link, even
> when theyre sitting right next to you in the car,

Yep, or in their house or my house too.

> w/o a computer?

They send it when they are next at a computer.

> so they actually load their cell's email program, somehow forward a url
> in it, and you check that in your cell, click it, and added it as a favorite

Yep.

> -- all instead of speaking?

Nope, while discussing it actually.

> wow. very organized system you have in place. impressive.

Leaves manually typing in urls for dead.

>>>>> However, most of those people don't use the media player
>>>>> functions of their phones, because they use iPods instead.

>>>> That is just plain wrong when their phone has a media player.

>>> i dont think its wrong. i think even people who have
>>> cell phones w/ media players still use ipods.

>> Only the fools.

>>> why? because the ipod performs its task
>>> better. why? because its easier to use.

>> Pity that you have to fart around with two separate devices.

> two devices, yes. but two devices that each do one thing really well.

Plenty of phones that do the phone function really well and the media player too.

> thus, no farting.

Corse it is on the two separate devices alone.

> if i could one device to do them both -- again, really well -- i would.

And that is precisely what so many do right now. Not just two either,
most of they have a camera as well and many a pda etc etc etc too.

> and it so would you, by your own admission (to you, the nokia
> N performs these taks very well. to others...perhaps not).

>> integrated media player with a decent UI instead.

> why settle for decent?

Because most dont want to fart around with multiple physical devices.

> i dont mind paying for better than decent. see ipod success.

Its ****ed for loading the ipod compared with the media
player in a properly implemented phone/media player.

>>>>> And the iPhone isn't all that expensive compared with the cost of an iPod + a phone.

>>>> Thats not a valid comparison, you should be comparing it with other media player phones.

>>> why?

>> Because most arent stupid enough to have two separate devices.

> actually, apparently most are "stupid" enough

Nope.

> -- i think the number of cell + primary-mp3 (non-stupid,
> by your rules) users are much smaller than you think;

Nope.

> and certainly do not qualify for the 'most' designator.

Wrong, as always.

>>> when you buy an iphone, you essentially get an ipod. why?
>>> the defining characteristics of the ipod are its style and its
>>> ease of use. both of which are present in the iphone version.

>> You dont know that yet.

> based on apples track record, its a safe bet.

Nope, look at the Newton some time.

> they arent going to reinvent a new ipod UI for the iphone.

They dont have any choice on that, it doesnt have any physical buttons.

> and it certainly hasnt been mentioned in the early reviews if they had.

Yes it has, it doesnt have any physical buttons.

> so im going to stick w/that assertion.

You can stick to anything you like, changes nothing.

>> And few will be silly enough to piss $5/600 and $50/90/month on a 2
>> year contract against the wall when they already have an ipod anyway.

> if youre right, then this will all just be an unpleasant memory
> years from now.....a silly fad that lasted, what, 6 mos? yep.

Yep, just like with the Newton that didnt even manage that long.

tony <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> Apple introduced the iPod into a market that was in a similar state.

>>>> Nope, nothing like it. You dont need much controls wise for a media player

>>> and yet, there were so many piss poor implementations of those few controls, until apple.

>> What I said in the bit you chose to delete from the quoting.

> evidently your quoting style eludes me, then.

Thats posting style, not quoting style.

> it appears to me you said the ipods good UI design was
> due to media players being uncomplicated to begin with.

Nope, those comments were about the STATE
OF THE MARKET when the ipod showed up.

> to which i responded the above.

Missing the point completely.

>>>> Virtually everyone already has a cellphone now and most of those
>>>> already have a media player now too if they use one much.

>>> i have never had a media player on any of my cellphones, first one in 1999.

>> I wasnt talking about media players in cellphones there.

> again, i must be confused.

No surprises there.

> it *appears* in the quote above that youre saying
> most of todays cellphones have a media player.

Nope, that most already have a media player, not necessarily in their cellphone.

>>> my phones continue to be small, cluttered, difficult
>>> to use devices that often leave me frustrated.

>> There's plenty that arent, most obviously
>> with the Nokias that do have a decent UI.

> keyword being decent. not good.

Wrong. Its good in your terms.

> my current phone is a nokia,

Then that claim of yours is a lie or you are a klutz.

> after having tried samsung, sony, and nokias prior. best
> part about it? i can use the same charger i had years ago.

>>> and w/ those implementations, most (like previous mp3 players) suck.

>> No they dont, particularly the Nokias.

> they do.

> herein lies our disagreement. further, i like itunes &
> syncing w/ my itunes. i cant do that w/ a nokia.

itunes aint the only way to synch a media player.

Even easier with a nokia, its just a drive that you can
copy to and from at will. You cant do that with an ipod.

>>> the functionality neednt be new, but the implementation thereof does.

>> Pity that that isnt new either. Its just a bit better on the touch
>> screen side. There's plenty of other touchscreens out there now.

> from what ive seen in the videos, the UI improvements i like go beyond
> touch screen. they are inline w/ my mac user experience, which i like.

Sure, but thats nothing like your previous claim.

On Jun 28, 5:40 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Work on your bull****ting 'skills'

huh? i see your taking this down the insult route... good tactic for
ya, when arguing the points gets tough, is it?

> Liar, you deleted quite a bit of the quoting.

i never said i didnt delete. i delete the garbage, and reply to whats
left. which is usually not much.

> >> You dont need that with a properly implemented
> >> media player, it appears as a drive on the computer.
> > ...oh, and it syncs w/ my music library telepathically, sans software?
>
> Nope, using the file manager you use for everything else.

oh! so you mean i have to manage it all *myself*, manually... ok, see,
to many, thats a step *backward*, not a feature. i rather like auto-
sync. and i like the rest of the ipod UI for track/playlist nav, and i
actually think its better than your glorious nokia or whatnot. just me
tho. or maybe not.

> > however, id still prefer one device, if it did. $50/90 is less and
> > not much more than what i spend now on my non-data plan.
>
> More fool you.

hey, blame verizone. i didnt invent their plans. id much rather pay
60, or 80, w/ unlimited data.

> > 500 isnt bad for a PDA, mobile email,
> > mobile full web browser, ipod, and cell phone.
>
> Pity about when you already have all that capability.

er, but i dont. unless youre surprising me w/ a lovely gift?

> > so yeah, id pay that. except, i dont buy first versions.
> > but in theory, or down the road, you bet.
>
> Yeah, but you're just another Apple lemming.

but...im not. ive been a windows man since 3.11, and i make my living
programming .NET applications (windows specific), on windows software.
i just bought a mac recently, because i liked how easier i found my
personal tasks to be. so, i think im a pretty open-minded guy in that
sense.

i do like how all of a sudden you gotta turn on me/posters who
disagree w/ ya tho. you sorta back yourself into a corner...its about
all you have left. i understand.


> >>>> Sure, but the UI on most phones is already quite adequate in those areas.
> >>> HA! funny. good one.
> >> HA!! pathetic. silly one.
> > ..? wheres the counter point...
>
> Where was yours ?

that cellphone software & UI are pretty ****ty. but dont take my word
for it -- you can google that assertion.

> And I decried your pathetic excuse for juvenile bull****.

yeah, theres that corner-backing stuff again. i bet you feel like a
trapped alley cat, huh? gotta lash out w/ them nasty claws....
"Rrrreeoww!" watch out!! there he goes!

> > and youve already agreed its commonly bad.
>
> No I didnt. I in fact said the exact opposite.

actually, you said in another post that most cell UI is crummy. but im
not going to do the work for you and dig it up. you do it.

> There's plenty that have lots more than the iphone
> has, like a removable battery, a sim, a decent camera,
> GSM 3G, video capture, cut and paste etc etc etc

i havent seen one phone that can do it all. certainly none w/ visual
voicemail, or mac-like ease of use. still waiting for you to name that
one.


sm

On Jun 28, 5:56 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > further, if someone in my carpool is talking about a url,
> > what tool should i "hit" to save their words into a favorite?
>
> The voice recorder, child.

oh wait -- so you *record* the conversation, then listen to it later,
and then...? type it? very interesting way of interacting. me, when im
having lunch w/ my buddy at the deli, and we're sitting there, and
want to look something up we just came across, we do it *right then*.
like, at the table! its amazing. but yeah, it means pushing buttons.
crazy.

> And anyone with a clue gets urls from emails anyway, even
> if they are talking to the individual that is talking about it.

sure. cuz uh, email has repleaced impromptu speaking. yeah.

> Its clearly too hard for someone as stupid as you.

"Rrreeoow!" watch out, there he goes!! nasty claws on that fellar...

> Plenty of phones that do the phone function really well and the media player too.

not really.

> Corse it is on the two separate devices alone.

yep. if a device doesnt do it well, i dont use it. still own a digital
camera, even tho i have this crummy one built into my nokia. useless.


> > i dont mind paying for better than decent. see ipod success.
>
> Its ****ed for loading the ipod compared with the media
> player in a properly implemented phone/media player.

cant understand ya, man.

> > -- i think the number of cell + primary-mp3 (non-stupid,
> > by your rules) users are much smaller than you think;
>
> Nope.

oh, so youre saying *most* people depend on their cellphone-and-media-
player combo device as their *primary* mp3 player or whatnot? bah!
total rubbish.

> > based on apples track record, its a safe bet.
>
> Nope, look at the Newton some time.

ok, so youre saying one flopped product means "apple sucks at UI".
Yyyyyeaaahhh......im gonna need you to come saturday......


> Yes it has, it doesnt have any physical buttons.

in the previews i read, they didnt say they came up w/ a lousy new UI.
quote me different.

> Yep, just like with the Newton that didnt even manage that long.

heh, theres that newton again... '93-95, dude. theyve gotten better at
stuff since then. see smash hits of macs & ipods. just pop into an
apple store.

sm