Re: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

In news:colalovesmacs-A41B8B.20494617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
>> Goggle has more money then apple.
>
> Because Apple and Google are partners in crime. Eric Schmidt sits on
> Apple's Board of Directors so whatever Apple says, Google does.
>
> and no, Google has about 1/2 the cash of Apple.
>
> -

Actually, since Eric Schmidt sits on Apple's Board, Apple does what Google
says! lol

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down the
> iphone and apple.

actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.

Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>
> Your so full of ****.

learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
information from me. it's "their", not "there".

Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down
>> the
>> iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.

and where did you get this tidbit- it seems every report says that verizon
*wouldn't* meet apple's demands, so they showed apple the door...

<snip>

In news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> typed:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned down
>> the iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at the
> top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.
> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards. Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.


VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
negotiations.

Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
Apple's advantage.

"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.

no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!

yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
years.

currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B

-

In article <8NWdnRF_ccSVKYvanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:colalovesmacs-495069.18460517102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net..
> .
> >
> > no, blackberry doesn't stand a chance since by unit sales alone
> > they will be miniscule by this time next year. all business
> > software developers will FLOCK to the iPhone since they know that
> > is the future of all smart phones. RIMM doesn't stand a chance
> > against apple at this point in the game.
> >
>
>
> Just the above statement proves you don't have even a fraction of an
> actual clue.
>
> Everything runs as root on an iPhone, which will keep 95% plus
> percent of the (smart anyway) IT depts away - and most do and will
> BAN the pretty (but flawed) toy.

This is a dumb claim. Yes, everything currently runs as root on an
iPhone. But running an app in a non-multiuser OS (what most other mobile
platforms have) is the same thing as running an app as root.

OS X provides a real permissions model, sandboxing, and application
signing. I can't offhand think of a mobile platform that implements all
three. Apple is also reusing robust battle-tested code from a real
operating system. You can bet there have been a hell of a lot more hours
invested in hardening the BSD networking stack than in hardening
whatever proprietary networking code a BlackBerry has.

Security is just one of many areas where the fact that the iPhone is
using a slimmed down version of a real desktop OS gives Apple
significant advantages over its competitors. (Well, except possibly its
Linux-based competitors, but at least in the US Linux-based phones don't
seem to have gotten anywhere.)

[snip]

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

In article <QDzRi.5773$y21.2069@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> ,
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> And tell us why Google would need apple ?
> Goggle has more money then apple.

I don't know if Google *needs* Apple, and I have no idea how closely the
two companies will end up working together... but Apple sure has a lot
more experience than Google building operating systems and hardware
platforms. The two companies would in many respects be a natural fit for
each other.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-DE8273.21025817102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> > 3) the iPhone is on all of the top 5 carriers within 2 years.
>> >
>> > 4) Apple and Google team up and buy their own part of the wireless
>> > spectrum and do an end run around all cell carriers.
>> >
>> > 5) and many more...
>> >
>> > most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can modernize
>> > enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high bandwidth
>> > devices.
>>
>> Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> WiFi.
>
> 80% of it is, but even AT&T choked when all the iPhones first came
> online. The data infrastructure of cell firms is way behind firms like
> Apple.

Apple has no daya infrastructure, moron.

> They hide behind slow 2.5 / 3G networks currently, but once
> they get a taste of unlimited 802.11g they are going to falter unless
> they plan for the future. They are geared for tiny sized voice
> transmissions, not huge data loads that come with all the wonderful
> features of the iPhone.


Oh, little Oxturd- how little you know about the world. No company on
the face of the planet is backing an unlimited 80211g initiative. Not
even Stevie Jobber is blowing that horn.

>
>> How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US? I
>> thought it was 5 years.
>
> Yes, it's 2 years. So it's hard to say what will happen in 18 months
> of course.


No it's not- iPhone swill be obsolete.


> Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
> fiddle for better pricing,

No he can't


> or play them off Verizon which is desperate
> for the iPhone contract, etc.

Except that Verizon turned away Apple once already and already has a
superior product lineup with better pricing and finctionality.

>
>> Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> CDMA?
>
> currently CDMA is like bad cable internet, it's good for the most part
> but it's shared and at peak times your calls sound like crap.

And holds the lion's share of the US market, hands down. That's why
Apple won't develop one- they always use second rate technology.

>

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-1CB861.21065717102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> >> most likely is No. 3 of course.... if those companies can
>> >> modernize enough to support Visual Voice Mail and very high
>> >> bandwidth devices.
>> >
>> > Why do you need high bandwidth? I thought everything was done with
>> > WiFi. How long does ATT have an exclusive on the iPhone in the US?
>> > I thought it was 5 years.
>> > Also the iPhone is only GSM - is Apple also designing one that is
>> > CDMA?
>> >
>> They did. But Verizon being 1st in line for the iphone, shot the
>> iphone down. Then they got AT&T
>
> yes, that will likely go down as one of the top 25 biggest business
> blunders of the last 50 years or so.

Based on what? Your clueless opinion? Verizon is positioned to surpass
AT&T in subscriber base and they aren't giving away money to market a
second class phone.

>
> verizon almost had it, but failed at the end.
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/v...e-iphone-deal/

That wasn't failure- it was very good foresight.

>
> i think they didn't yet understand that Apple sets the rules,

Where?


> they
> don't...


yet they did

> so they lost the game. But it's possible they may have a
> chance later on.
>

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A2A390.22285617102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You keep saying this like apple turned down Verizon. Verizon turned
>> down the iphone and apple.
>
> actually, you have it upside down, just like you mistakenly post at
> the top which is the mark of a true amateur on usenet.
>
> Verizon couldn't meet Apple's demands, so they were shown the door.

A lie insupported by the facts.

> Apple has a long history of doing that if companies can't meet high
> standards.


Such as?


> Look at IBM, they failed, and Apple kicked them out.
>

Um, no. IBM's failure was due to HP, Dell and a host of other companies.
Little player Apple wasn't the reason.

Oxford <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
FA7034.22392217102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.
>
> it's "than" microsoft. not "then" microsoft.
>
> no wonder you use windows! duuuuuummmb!
>
> yes, apple will be worth more than microsoft... the general consensus is
> this will happen in 2-4 years. and surpass them in "revenue" within 1-2
> years.

According to who? I find no such analysis anywhere.

>
> currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>
> -
>

Try again, nimrod.

Apple- $150B
Microsoft- $292B

Damn- you are that stupid.

In article <bIARi.4664$wF3.312@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Next you will be saying apple is worth more then Microsoft.

It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that Apple will have
higher market capitalization than Microsoft in a couple of years. As
much as "serious" business types like to sneer at consumer products, the
markets Apple is playing in these days are actually or potentially
gigantic.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's core markets (desktop operating systems and
office software) have much lower growth rates (they're more
established), and Microsoft hasn't even been releasing particularly
compelling products in them.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

I'll be waiting for you to misspell. Then look out as I'll make it a point
to show even you mistype as well. : )

Yes I top post. As others here do as well.

"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@smart.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-0976FE.22310017102007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Then tell us why "Steve" Wanted Verizon with there CDMA ?
>>
>> Your so full of ****.
>
> learn proper grammar and how to post to usenet before you get any more
> information from me. it's "their", not "there".
>
> Kevin, you don't measure up, here is the door...

"IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:

> VZW would not agree to all of Apples demands so VZW terminated the
> negotiations.

well, they still lost the ability to sell the iPhone which has put a
drag on the company's stock compared to ATT.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=T&t=...n&z=m&q=l&c=vz

> Apple had nothing to do with IBM leaving the PC market ~ it was caused by
> IBM PC clones which now have over 90% of the desktop computer market
> compared to less than 10% for Apple. Percentages not exact - rounded off to
> Apple's advantage.

no, i didn't mean them leaving the PC market in that previous comment. i
meant that IBM lost the big Apple account for the PowerPC chips about
1.5 years ago... it caused quite a stir inside IBM and laid off 100's.

they just couldn't keep up with Apple.