Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!

"Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just more of the same, lame fiction.

catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say ****! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!

trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...

Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.

-

---

› See More: Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!

Oxford wrote:

> "Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
>
> catch me back in 5 years...


Better idea: hold your breath and let's see what happens.

No cheat-breathing, now, Oxie-moron. Hold it.

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
[email protected]:

> "Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say ****! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...

Bull****.

>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.

More bull****. Other than the mp3 market, Apple is a third rate player in
EVERY other market they do businees in.

>
> -
>

Oxford wrote:
> Those are the only 2 choices for the next several decades.

Two decades??? Hell, the iPhone will be obsolete, MORON.

"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>
> catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say ****! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>
> trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -
>

OK...... I'll NOT be holding my breath in the mean time.

Here's the deal..... the market is FAR from "static" and functions
VERY well. Therefore, your suppositions aren't based on any facts.

Therefore, they are completely false.

Oxford wrote:
> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.

Always???

Lets see....

1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.

2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.

3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.

4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.

5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.

6) Taligent - Dead after a few years

7) EWorld - Dead after two years.

8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.

9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
$7,499 price been a factor?

10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.

11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.

12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.

DTC <[email protected]> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Oxford wrote:
>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Always???
>
> Lets see....
>
> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>
> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>
> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>
> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>
> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>
> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>
> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>
> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>
> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
> $7,499 price been a factor?
>
> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>
> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>
> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>
>
>
>
>

You forgot Apple TV.

Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:56:56 -0700, Oxford
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just more of the same, lame fiction.
>>
>>catch me back in 5 years... you'll then say ****! ... OXFORD WAS RIGHT!
>>
>>trust me Ness, I've seen all this before... many times...
>>
>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> Like the Walkman? Oh wait, that was Sony. I can't think of an Apple
> example.
>

No- it was the flat screen hi-def market! Oh, wait... that was everybody
BUT Apple.

Never mind.

In news:[email protected],
CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
> @nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>>
>> Always???
>>
>> Lets see....
>>
>> 1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>
>> 2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>
>> 3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>
>> 4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>
>> 5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>
>> 6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>
>> 7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>
>> 8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>> Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>
>> 9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
>> $7,499 price been a factor?
>>
>> 10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>
>> 11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>
>> 12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> You forgot Apple TV.



Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
the market and killed off the competition?

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

> Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>
> -

Market share in personal computers--much less than a majority.

Market share in pda's--haven't seen any Newtons around lately.

So far as I can tell, the only thing that comes even close to fitting
your description is the iPod.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ness-Net" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
> >
> >
>
> It's the "posturing" that is what garners the responses.
> The arrogant, **I** know it all, everyone else doesn't piss poor attitude.
>

As I read it, it's the desire of the responders to feel good about
themselves by dumping on a readily available target that's the main
driver for the responses.

But perhaps I am being uncharitable.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

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

> David Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I could go on. The iPhone is a very pretty piece of technology, and for
> > some users probably the best phone available, but not for all, probably
> > not for most.
> >
> > > Apple has too many patents on the future, so
> > > everyone must either bow down to Apple or go out of business.
> >
> > This is the sort of comment--a statement apparently made because it lets
> > you feel good about posturing rather than because there is any reason to
> > think it is true--that gives me some sympathy with the posters who spend
> > their time exchanging insults with you instead of actually posting about
> > something interesting.
>
> great, but you are missing the point that the current iPhone is just the
> slightest tip of the product iceberg.

Your original statement, which you didn't quote in the post I'm
responding to, was:

"No handset maker can now compete in the Cell Market against the iPhone,
that's a pure fact."

Are you now agreeing that that that was, not a fact, but nonsense, and
revising your claim to "in the future no cell maker will be able to
compete in the cell market against the new iPhones that will eixst
then?" That's a very different claim.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

IMHO IIRC wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
>
>>DTC <[email protected]> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
>>@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>
>>
>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes all.
>>>
>>>Always???
>>>
>>>Lets see....
>>>
>>>1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>>
>>>2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>>
>>>3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>>
>>>4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>>
>>>5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>>
>>>6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>>
>>>7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>>
>>>8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>>>Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>>
>>>9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could the
>>>$7,499 price been a factor?
>>>
>>>10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>>
>>>11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>>
>>>12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You forgot Apple TV.
>
>
>
>
> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices dominated
> the market and killed off the competition?
>


Undoubtedly, furiously screen-scraping material that he doesn't
understand, but believes to be responsive, with which to reply.

Or asking SJ ...

News <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
>
> IMHO IIRC wrote:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> typed:
>>
>>>DTC <[email protected]> wrote in news:ADL0j.492$Vq.290
>>>@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Apple always disrupts static, non-functioning markets, then takes
>>>>>all.
>>>>
>>>>Always???
>>>>
>>>>Lets see....
>>>>
>>>>1) Apple III computer, circa 1980 - overheating problems.
>>>>
>>>>2) Lisa - Thousands buried in a landfill for a tax credit.
>>>>
>>>>3) SJ's Next computer - never found a market, until Apple bought it.
>>>>
>>>>4) Power Mac Cube - Shelved within a year after it was introduced.
>>>>
>>>>5) Apple Cyberdog - It was a dog.
>>>>
>>>>6) Taligent - Dead after a few years
>>>>
>>>>7) EWorld - Dead after two years.
>>>>
>>>>8) Pippin - Couldn't compete with Sony Playstation, Sega Saturn and
>>>>Nintendo 64. Less than 45,000 sold.
>>>>
>>>>9) 20th Anniversary Macintosh - Discontinued after one year, could
>>>>the $7,499 price been a factor?
>>>>
>>>>10) Macintosh Portable - The $6,500 price killed it off.
>>>>
>>>>11) Newton - The "future of computing". Six year life.
>>>>
>>>>12) Puck Mouse - No one could figure out which end was up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You forgot Apple TV.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Where is Oxford when we need him to explain how all these devices
>> dominated the market and killed off the competition?
>>
>
>
> Undoubtedly, furiously screen-scraping material that he doesn't
> understand, but believes to be responsive, with which to reply.

He probably is trying to get past the 100,000 links that beat the above
list into his head.

>
> Or asking SJ ...

How would he do that with his mouth full?

In article <[email protected]>,
Bob Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Apple introduced a big, slow, locked,
> expensive, proprietary phone

Wow -- you, too, are wrong on almost every point
it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
has close to that screen res.
it isn't particularly slow processing
locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
it isn't expensive compared to most phones with a high-res screen (and
it's totally foolish to compare to ANYTHING that doesn't have that --
it's the PRIME feature!)
Just what are you calling proprietary?

> into a market dominated by smaller, faster,
> less expensive models

smaller models are missing the major factor that it is built on -- the
one that says it's idiotic to compare to anything else.
Yes, if you are satisfied with a phone that has a 160x160 screen, then
iPhone isn't for you -- because nearly everything iPhone is made to be
good at is nearly impossible on that cheap phone.
(I need not even explain why that major primary factor makes the phone
more expensive, nor why the people who need that feature aren't being
ripped off, right?)

It doesn't mean iPhone is bad, or a bad choice, it means it isn't the
phone for that customer.
It doesn't mean Apple made a bad phone for that customer -- it means
they didn't make anything for that customer at all!