NEWS: Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone

In article <[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, but in the past you have argued that Apple uses grade A
> > > components... which are of a higher quality than those of Rival PC
> > > manufactures, now how can you claim that AND claim that they use
> > > crappy monitors in the iMacs?
> >
> > He'll just claim it was Jobs' day off when Apple signed the purchase
> > order...
> >
> > You can't have a religion without a deity...
>
> not sure what you mean, it's only the low end 20" imacs that used the
> poorer LG screens the 24" imacs are fine.

Now the differences I'd been seeing when I look at these two makes sense.

--
"None of you can be honest... you are all pathetic." - Snit
"I do not KF people" - Snit
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming,
I show evidence from the records".-Snit
"You should take one of my IT classes some day." - Snit
"People can *not* make their own ring tones without hacks or work-arounds".-Snit

---

› See More: NEWS: Chocolate sales nearly rival iPhone

Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 20 Sep 2007 10:38:28 -0400 Carl wrote:
>
>> Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's not the point to me. I'm
>> not an iPhone user nor an Apple fan. I am a Verizon user, but I
>> don't see how you can compare the LG Chocolate to the iPhone, unless
>> you're looking only at their respective music playing abilities. Are
>> we talking about phones here or .mp3/audio players?
>
>
> Verizon picked the phone to compare (it's their press release) so I
> assume Verizon is lumping them together as "MP3 phones."
>
>> The iPhone has outstanding web browsing/internet potential and an
>> innovative touch screen design, none of which the Chocolate can
>> compare to. Other than
>> that they're both cell phones and are
>> rectangular in shape. This is such a cliched apples and oranges
>> issue, I don't get why it has been brought up.
>
> I think while the iPhone does do so much more, the majority of it's
> buyers were looking for an "iPod phone." Arguably, the Chocolate is
> Verizon's closest equivalent in that category.
>
>> Why not compare the iPhone to the Blackberry 8830 and at least keep
>> the comparison in similar markets?
>
> I don't agree that those are similar markets. Despite the iPhone's
> many well-implemented features, a business phone it isn't. While the
> iPhone's feature set is probably much closer to a Blackberry than a
> Chocolate, the iPhone's lack of any enterprise e-mail solution
> automatically removes it from the BB's main market and renders a
> comparison pretty meaningless. Arguably, despite the wide disparity
> of features, the iPhone and Chocolate share the same market- media
> player phones for the consumer market. The iPhone is just at the much
> higher-end of that market than the Chocolate is.

Ok, thanks. I see what you mean. I didn't catch that Verizon made the
comparison in a press release. A client of mine had a new Chocolate in my
office yesterday. I personally don't see any comparison unless the mp3/phone
aspects are the emphasis. Nor was I moved to run out and get a Chocolate
after seeing his.

I love new technological toys and have had a new cell phone every year or
two since my first Panasonic bag phone. But I can't find any new toy to
love currently in the cell phone market. In the case of cell phones, I think
I'm at the end of the internet with my Razr V3... :-)