Vodafone TERRIFIED of iPhone - Seeks Restraining Order!

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> has close to that screen res.

iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
technology LCDs

> it isn't particularly slow processing
> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone

Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the worst
major carrier in the US.

> Just what are you calling proprietary?

As a phone, it isn't particularly proprietary, but as an Internet access
device it is. The Internet access device market is one in which the
entire firmware (not just selected pieces) is open source, and in which
people can, and do, produce and distribute their own modified firmware.

> 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 am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
height (preferably 600, 768, or more). It is not "the real Internet" if
you have to zoom out to an unreadable level to see page layout, then zoom
in to read the text. It is not "the real Internet" if web designers have
to create special CSS to "optimize" for your device.

LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.

I can't get over how HUGE the pixels are in iPhone. Maybe you think that
that is decent image resolution, but to me it is like looking at a
newspaper.

> (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?)

That argument doesn't wash. Three year old screen technology (and yes,
320x480 screens were on phones in Japan in 2004) isn't that expensive.

> 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!

These arguments may be correct. The problem is that certain cretins (most
notably Oxford) claim that iPhone is the be-all and end-all for everybody.

iPhone's legitimate market is that of a way-cool iPod that is also a phone
and an Internet access device; and its legitimate customers are those who
want a way-cool iPod that is also a phone and an Internet access device.

iPhone is not "the best phone". As a phone, it is mediocre. It is large,
it is expensive, it is locked, it is 2G-only, and its voice performance is
merely adequate. Other products do better in all of these categories.
Remember, we are talking about "as a phone" -- the screen resolution is
irrelevant here.

iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
kicks iPhone butt in this regard.

Case in point. iPod Touch, which started out as iPhone minus the phone,
is failing badly in the market. The question is not "if" Apple will
cancel it, but "when". It is overpriced, both as an iPod and as an
Internet access device. It deletes more than just the phone part of
iPhone, making it much less attractive. Clearly, Apple was worried that
iPod Touch would compete with iPhone, but in the process of making it
non-competitive with iPhone they made it non-competitive with the Nokia
N800.

iPhone is not a business tool at all. It lacks the business tools found
in smart phones. The few executives who tried iPhone as a substitute for
Blackberry quickly went back to their Blackberry.

Nobody, nobody!!, is disputing that iPhone is king of the "way-cool iPod
that is also a phone and an Internet access device" market. For people
who want that sort of thing, iPhone is perfect.

Nonetheless, iPhone is not a serious player in the phone market, nor the
Internet access device market, nor the business tool market. Nor is
iPhone a serious player in the teenager market (way too geeky for the
girls, way too nerdish for most of the boys). iPhone is a toy for adult,
primarily male, nerds who play with technological toys but don't really
*need* it.

iPhone will have at least one follow-on product. But it has pretty much
gotten as much market share as it is going to get; and the successor
iPhone will cannibalize previous sales more than gain new market.

As noted above, iPod Touch is toast, barring a major price drop (e.g.,
$175 for the 8GB version and $250 for the 16GB version). Expect to see
that kind of pricing at firesale if Apple does not buy them back.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

---

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

Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
>> it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything
>> that has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs
>

Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
kinds of ridiculous assertions.

Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
recently-introduced "iPhone killers."

But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.


>> it isn't particularly slow processing
>> locked isn't horrible, and it isn't any problem for almost everyone
>
> Being locked is most certainly a problem when it is locked to the
> worst major carrier in the US.

They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM, allowed them
to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone as a first-release
would have been a disaster. At least try to think it through.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post as your opening comments were
ludicrous. You are no better than Oxford, perhaps worse.


--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Mitch wrote:
> > it isn't very big, and it certainly isn't big compared to anything that
> > has close to that screen res.
>
> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
> technology LCDs

There is a much smaller portable device with resolution of 960x640? What
is it? That would be more than twice the resolution of the Nokia E90,
which is more expensive than the iPhone and heavier.

....

> I am not satisfied with an Internet access device that has a cheap, tiny,
> 320x480 screen. Access to "the real Internet" requires at least 800
> pixels of width (preferably 1024 or more) and at least 480 pixels of
> height (preferably 600, 768, or more).

That would be very nice. What device that connects via the cell network
and is small enough to be about as convenient as the iPhone meets those
requirements?

The closest I could come was the E90, with 800x352, but it had enough
other problems so that I sent it back.

....

> LCD screens are on the market that are not substantially larger than
> iPhone, but have 800x600 and 1024x600 resolutions. The 800x600 screen is
> on a device that sells for slightly more than 1/2 the price of iPhone.

Is that device a cell phone?

Also, I'm not sure how much good additional resolution does without
additional screen size.

....

> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.

But isn't a phone. And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.

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

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:


>
> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA iPhone
> as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try to think
> it through.

Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to the FCC
long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into development. They
also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T

In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all. Absurd.
>

The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution. It's
also heavier and more expensive. It does have a 3G connection--provided
you are in Europe where the frequency it uses is supported.

And the current software, at least by my experience, is pretty bad.

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

CozmicDebris wrote:
> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>> to think it through.
>
> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before AT&T

You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust any of
your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.

The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is AT&T.
Deal with it and stop the whining.


--
Mike

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>> Absurd.
>>
>
> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> It's also heavier and more expensive.

That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
nonetheless.

Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
which have twice or four times the screen resolution."


--
Mike

"Tinman" <[email protected]> stated in post [email protected] on
11/22/07 2:19 PM:

> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>> Absurd.
>>>
>>
>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution. Indeed a
> phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice the resolution,
> released with a glaring defect, can't really be used to argue that the
> iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing that, but I bring it up
> nonetheless.
>
> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone and
> have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then this comment
> from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge compared to devices
> which have twice or four times the screen resolution."
>
Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his other
BS claims:

* Wikipedia is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.

* Apple is wrong about Apple technologies... but he is right.

* I am wrong about how to ***** my online name... but he is right.

* He can find a $700 laptop that does more than the Mac Oxford
pointed to.

He never managed to support any of those claims. Funny that, eh?

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
--Aldous Huxley

Snit <[email protected]> wrote in
news:C36B41EF.9A91F%[email protected]:

> "Tinman" <[email protected]> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/22/07 2:19 PM:
>
>> David Friedman wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
>>>> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
>>>> Absurd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
>>> It's also heavier and more expensive.
>>
>> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.
>> Indeed a phone that is more than twice the size, with not quite twice
>> the resolution, released with a glaring defect, can't really be used
>> to argue that the iPhone is "huge." Not claiming you were arguing
>> that, but I bring it up nonetheless.
>>
>> Still waiting for the list of phones that are smaller than the iPhone
>> and have two to *four* (chuckle) times the resolution. Until then
>> this comment from the cosmic brainiac is a joke: "iPhone is huge
>> compared to devices which have twice or four times the screen
>> resolution."
>>
> Hey! Do I get to add that claim of his to the list I started with his
> other BS claims:
>


You probably could if he was responding to me, numbnuts.

Damn, ****- you are clueless.

In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Tinman" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> But do please list all of the phones with "twice or four times the"
> >> resolution so we end this silly "huge" comment once and for all.
> >> Absurd.
> >>
> >
> > The Nokia E90 works out to about two times the iPhone's resolution.
> > It's also heavier and more expensive.
>
> That's one, and its main display isn't even twice the resolution.

Pretty close.

480x320=153,600

800x352=281,600

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

"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> CozmicDebris wrote:
>> "Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> They went with the largest carrier in the USA which, being GSM,
>>> allowed them to use the very same phone internationally. A CDMA
>>> iPhone as a first-release would have been a disaster. At least try
>>> to think it through.
>>
>> Obviously Apple didn't think so- the CDMA version was submitted to
>> the FCC long before they panicked and rushed the GSM phone into
>> development. They also held discussions with Verizon well before
>> AT&T
>
> You don't have any idea what Apple thought. In fact I wouldn't trust
> any of your ideas at this point, based on your recent posting history.


And the amount of distress that will cause me will probably keep me awake
for the next few hours.

>
> The fact is the iPhone is GSM and the carrier of choice in the US is
> AT&T. Deal with it and stop the whining.
>
>


Who's whining, Rainman? The facts are well documented- Apple's original
network of choice was Verizon, and they were shown the door by Verizon.
The original iPhone was designed as a CDMA phone, and submitted to the FCC
as such. Only after being turned down did the GSM phone miraculously
appear.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Tinman wrote:
>> iPhone is huge compared to devices which have twice or four times the
>> screen resolution. Apple must have gotten a cheap deal on some old
>> technology LCDs
> Bzzzt. Wrong. You really do your argument a disservice when you make these
> kinds of ridiculous assertions.
> Most phones have half the iPhone's pixel count--and this includes
> recently-introduced "iPhone killers."

You keep on harping on phones, when I am talking about mobile devices.
iPhone, by claiming to be an Internet access device instead of just a
phone, must be compared by the standards of mobile devices.

Nokia N800 has a screen which is only slighty larger than the iPhone, yet
has twice (640x480) the number of pixels as iPhone (320x480). Sony UX
series has a screen which is only slightly larger than that, but is a
whopping 1024x600 pixels.

The difference is density. iPhone has HUGE pixels, and looks like a
newspaper photo. Apple bought some leftover LCDs from that Japanese phone
makers used 3 years ago (I know all about 320x480 phones, they were common
in Japan in late 2004).

While you iPhone fanboys are oohing and aahing over your old technology
LCDs, people with real mobile devices are using real screens. So are
phone users in Japan.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
>> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
>> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
>> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
>> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
> But isn't a phone.

It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
Wi-Fi.

> And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.

iPhone 135g
N800 206g

In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In article
<[email protected]>,
Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, David Friedman wrote:
> >> iPhone is not "the best Internet access device." As an Internet access
> >> device, it is slightly better than most consumer phones; but quite
> >> inadequate compared to other mobile devices on the market. The Nokia 800
> >> kicks iPhone butt in this regard.
> > But isn't a phone.
>
> It is an Internet access device. And it talks Bluetooth, so it can be
> used with any network's phone, not just AT&T and S-L-O-W EDGE. And it has
> Wi-Fi.
>
> > And weighs about four times as much as the iPhone.
>
> iPhone 135g
> N800 206g
>
> In what system of arithmetic is 206 four times 135?

I looked it up on Amazon.com and it gave "Weight: 1.32 pounds" under
"technical details" (not under "shipping weight"). That's about four
times the iPhone's weight.

Checking another source it gives 7.3 oz, which is about your figure.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.

Nor does it emerge from attempts to create a single authoritative voice
on scientific truth--which is part of what irritates me about the IPCC.

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

Oxford wrote:
> Old School Vodafone is so upset with the massive popularity of the
> iPhone in Germany they have gone to court to try and block their own
> downfall!

And Vodafone won....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/21/i...any/index.html

Vodafone wins iPhone court ruling.
BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Deutsche Telekom AG's mobile unit said Wednesday
it would offer Apple Inc.'s popular iPhone without a contract to comply
with a court injunction issued after Vodafone challenged T-Mobile's
exclusive lock on the handset.