Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Reality" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> NEVER be ubiquitous (like you contend) is WiFi. Now, wimax
>> may be something to watch, but wifi certainly will NEVER be a
>> replacement for cellular.
>
> ah, shifting goal posts? just as i figured.
>
> wimax is wifi, the cell network is dead, just as i've been saying.

Sorry, this is a little deviation from the actual subject being discussed.

But, again, it shows that another of your contentions is pure horse****.

The iPhone didn't hurt Verizon one bit.

Verizon Wireless saw some subscribers defect to AT&T to get the iPhone
but the impact was short-lived, said one of Verizon's parents, Vodafone Group, on Wednesday.
Vodafone Chief Executive Arun Sarin said on Wednesday that right after the iPhone was launched
in late June, some Verizon Wireless customers moved, or ported, their numbers to AT&T.

"Porting ratios went negative but a month afterward porting ratios were back," he said, adding that
a similar trend occurred when Apple cut the price of its iPhone to $399 from $599 earlier this month.
"Porting ratios go negative, then two weeks later were back to normal again," he said.

The iPhone is nothing more than a blip on the radar.

---

› See More: Jobs SLAMS 3G - Wipes out its future!

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Reality" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm never "silent" I just choose to shine a bright light where ignorance
> is common place. (like the current cell phone industry)
>
> You'll get it in time "Reality"... I sense you have the intelligence to
> understand what I'm saying. I'll give you a few more months...
>
> In the meantime...
>
> if you want to try out the iPhone on the cheap, here is your chance...
> go to the below link... then on the right side, click on "special
> deals", then "clearance" .... not.... "iphone".... and there you will
> find the 4GB iPhones for $299.



Sorry, your "bright light" must have burnt out.
It isn't shining a single photon of truth on anything.

And, thanks but no thanks. I wouldn't use AT&T if it was free.

In fact in the past it was free for me. I had a free company phone on AT&T.
It was so incredibly horrible, I kept using my VZW phone and avoided AT&T.
I'd rather pay and have good service.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Wrong, Drive down some hi-way and see how much Wi-Fi you get.

Ah, a mistake on your part. I consider driving while on a Cell Phone
illegal. So no wonder you are confused on this issue.

> > The thought of some brain-damaged idiot driving the freeway while trying
> > to use 3G on his phone is frightening.
>
> But it's even worse with EDGE as their attention is diverted for a much
> longer period of time.

Nah, nobody should use a cellphone when driving. It should be a felony.

I always swerve into them... blast my horn and flip them off when i see
someone driving with a cellphone in their ear. Total idiots, all of them.

Women especially drive about 10 miles per hour "slower" when talking,
and this very dangerous for everyone, so Cellphones "while driving" on
the highway / and road illegal is a top priority by anyone who is smart.

It would save 4,500-6,000 lives a year.

Stupid Cellphone Companies!

-

"IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Ah, so the flaw is thinking that a thousand times more WiFi towers is less
> > expensive to deploy than cell towers.
>
> But according to Oxford WiFi is available everywhere already - EXCEPT where
> you and I are.

if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
service...

you'll have it in time of course, but most Mac users have free service
now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal with
the "old world" you seem to be living in.

-

In news:[email protected],
Oxford <[email protected]> typed:
> "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Ah, so the flaw is thinking that a thousand times more WiFi towers is
>>> less expensive to deploy than cell towers.
>>
>> But according to Oxford WiFi is available everywhere already - EXCEPT
>> where you and I are.
>
> if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
> lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
> service...
>
> you'll have it in time of course, but most Mac users have free service
> now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal with
> the "old world" you seem to be living in.
>
> -

Sounds like Cable internet, Satalite internet, and dialup internet are also
in trouble.
Why would anyone pay when they can just use FREE WiFi to surf the net.

No Internet bills and no cell phone bills - Just FREE WiFi - Can hardly
wait.

"IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sounds like Cable internet, Satalite internet, and dialup internet are also
> in trouble.
> Why would anyone pay when they can just use FREE WiFi to surf the net.
>
> No Internet bills and no cell phone bills - Just FREE WiFi - Can hardly
> wait.

good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
more than $5 a month for full access.

This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
old Landline companies.

This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.

We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.

It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.

Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!

-

The Ghost of General Lee <[email protected]> wrote:

> >good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
> >saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
> >more than $5 a month for full access.
>
> First you say it'll be free, now you say we must "contribute"? Isn't
> that the same thing some politicians at one time said of taxes, that
> they were "contributions"? At least you're finally realizing there is
> no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for the
> infrastructure, support, maintenance, etc. for all that "free" Wifi
> service.

you only contribute if you want to be part of this great social
experiment. if you want total freedom, go for it.

> >This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
> >old Landline companies.
> >
> >This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
> >before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
> >free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.
>
> That sounds a lot like theft of service to me. They were criminals,
> pure and simple.

no, last time I looked 1 & 0's are free, it's only the middlemen that
try and trick you into thinking otherwise. One big grid of linked WiFi
basestations and you have the end of several obsolete industries, and
that should be the goal of everyone.

Remember buggy whips and horse **** in the streets several decades ago?
Nope... just as people won't remember "paying" for internet access in
the next decade or so.

> >We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.
>
> Get back to stealing???

exchanging 1 & 0's for free is stealing? sounds like you don't know
where all this is headed. You'll learn.

> >It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.
>
> With Captain Oxturd Ignorance leading the charge!
>
> >Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!
>
> Your battleship has already been sunk, "Captain." Game over.

You are scared of the future, I'm not. It's plain and simple.

-

ZnU wrote:
> In article <tR0Ii.4642$6o2.3735@trnddc05>,
> "Reality" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> 3. Certainly Apple has to watch battery life. Without a USER
>> CHANGEABLE battery, Apple has it's ASS hanging waaaay out on a limb.
>
> What fraction of cell phone users actually carry multiple batteries
> around? I'd be surprised if it was a full 1%.
>
> Why do so many of Apple's detractors completely ignore the way real
> users actually use products?
>
> [snip]

I carry an extra battery for my phone and an extra battery for my MP3
player and an extra battery for my camera. The way I travel I use those
extra batteries frequently. Am I part of 1% or 50%? Neither you or I
know but at least for ME - I won't consider a "sealed battery" product.
If Apple solved that and offered the phone through TMo, I might consider
it, but based on my service experience with an Apple Mini I'd be very
wary.

Oxford wrote:
> "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Ah, so the flaw is thinking that a thousand times more WiFi towers
>>> is less expensive to deploy than cell towers.
>>
>> But according to Oxford WiFi is available everywhere already -
>> EXCEPT where you and I are.
>
> if you live in a poor area, just MOVE... there is no reason for you to
> lower your standard of life just to be out of range of free WiFi
> service...
>
> you'll have it in time of course, but most Mac users have free service
> now. they don't put up with poor living standards, thus don't deal
> with the "old world" you seem to be living in.
>
> -
Hmm, now I'm confused. Let's see, the cheapest house on my street is a
tear down listed at $4.5 million but I live in a "poor area" because we
don't have free wi-fi and, apparently, no one on the street owns a MAC
because MAC owners won't put up with "poor living standards." Have I
got that right now?

Hertz_Donut <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyone caught surfing the web, downloading, etc while driveling should have
> a minimum one year license suspension.

Boring other people by driveling into a mobile phone isn't sufficiently
dangerous to warrant a minimum one year licence suspension... :-)

But using a mobile while driving in the UK gets you a £60 ($120) fine
and three penalty points.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I carry an extra battery for my phone and an extra battery for my MP3
> player and an extra battery for my camera. The way I travel I use those
> extra batteries frequently. Am I part of 1% or 50%? Neither you or I
> know but at least for ME - I won't consider a "sealed battery" product.
> If Apple solved that and offered the phone through TMo, I might consider
> it, but based on my service experience with an Apple Mini I'd be very
> wary.

then get an extra battery for your iphone / ipod. lots of companies make
them. and the mini? service experience? those machines are easy to open
and work on.

sounds like you aren't educated on how Apple products operate.

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
> good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
> saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
> more than $5 a month for full access.
>
> This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
> old Landline companies.
>
> This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
> before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
> free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.
>
> We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.
>
> It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.
>
> Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!
>
> -

Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede20.art.htm

Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access

CHICAGO — Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
proving to be too costly and complicated.

Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
networks on hold.

"Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
corridor.

Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....

"Giganews" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede20.art.htm
>
> Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
> Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
>
> CHICAGO ‹ Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
> wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
> proving to be too costly and complicated.
>
> Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
> networks on hold.
>
> "Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
> Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
> corridor.
>
> Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....

An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!

Sure, there is no longer a need for "cities" to do it themselves since
the WiFi revolution is spreading far faster, and without "any"
involvement from. So this is what everyone is seeing across the country.

Throw in VoIP and you'll have free worldwide phone network, just as was
envisioned.

Can you say Google Phone? Bet you can!

-

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
>

A bit more fiction?
Nowhere in that article does it reference "cell phone companies"

I guess now you are a crazy conspiracy theorist as well?

More info:

Cincinnati shelved its plan last week for a citywide network because the
market is too unstable.

•The Silicon Valley plan for free Wi-Fi is at risk after providers decided
local governments must be "anchor tenants" for the service.

•Springfield, Ill., is looking for another partner after AT&T dropped Wi-Fi
plans last month.

•St. Louis is trying to figure out how to power Wi-Fi transmitters on 1,700
street lights when they're not illuminated without spending millions of
dollars.

Yeah that's going to work. Carry an extra battery. If doing that, You better
carry a soldering iron, pry tools, solder, etc.

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I carry an extra battery for my phone and an extra battery for my MP3
>> player and an extra battery for my camera. The way I travel I use those
>> extra batteries frequently. Am I part of 1% or 50%? Neither you or I
>> know but at least for ME - I won't consider a "sealed battery" product.
>> If Apple solved that and offered the phone through TMo, I might consider
>> it, but based on my service experience with an Apple Mini I'd be very
>> wary.
>
> then get an extra battery for your iphone / ipod. lots of companies make
> them. and the mini? service experience? those machines are easy to open
> and work on.
>
> sounds like you aren't educated on how Apple products operate.