Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

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

> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> 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.

---

› See More: Apple To Allow Third Party Apps ON iPhone

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

> "Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > expect sales of WinMobile, Symbian and Blackberries to dry up within a
> > year. this is good news for everyone!
>
> Not unless prices on iPhones drop significantly. Many people just don't use
> any 3rd-party applications on their phone in the first place -- probably at
> least 2/3rd of them: They're buying a phone based on what it can do "out of
> the box" and price.

You're making the mistake of comparing the iPhone's price to the price
of other phones. You might want to consider that the iPhone in the first
phone on the market which can reasonably take the place of an iPod, and
look at what people will happily pay for iPods.

(And yes, I'm quite aware there have been other music player phones, but
as we see in the music player market itself, most people don't consider
other music players to be reasonable iPod substitutes.)

Anyway, I'd expect Apple to be pretty aggressive with pricing. Because
they sell 80% of the world's music players, they can probably get better
prices on most components than their competitors.

> But I agree it's good news that Apple's opening up the iPhone to proper
> development.

--
"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 <[email protected]> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
[email protected]:

> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>,
"Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> 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

Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

the financial community in general, no specific firm.

> > currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
> >
> > -
> >
>
> Try again, nimrod.
>
> Apple- $150B
> Microsoft- $292B
>
> Damn- you are that stupid.

scott, you goofed again.

apple is around 28B in revenue, microsoft is around $49B in revenue.
those are the "sizes" of the two firms. market cap is different.

do i have to ***** EVERYTHING out to you?

it seems so.

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

> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> the financial community in general, no specific firm.

No such analysis exists. You just lied again.

>
>> > currently apple is about a $28B company, microsoft is around $49B
>> >
>> > -
>> >
>>
>> Try again, nimrod.
>>
>> Apple- $150B
>> Microsoft- $292B
>>
>> Damn- you are that stupid.
>
> scott, you goofed again.
>
> apple is around 28B in revenue, microsoft is around $49B in revenue.
> those are the "sizes" of the two firms. market cap is different.

How little you know about the real world- revenue does not dictate the size
of the company, pinhead.

>
> do i have to ***** EVERYTHING out to you?

Why start now? You've done such a good job of looking like an idiot.

>
> it seems so.
>

Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

daya? what the hell?

> > 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.

that's strange, most all ISPs do, thus 802.11g provides "Unlimited Data"
just like what you get on the iPhone either via 802.11g or via EDGE.

> >> 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.

no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
aren't to long product lives.

> > Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
> > fiddle for better pricing,
>
> No he can't

He now holds the golden phone, ATT's top selling smart phone and
strongest source for new users to ATT. Yes, he has a lot of power over
them, he was even able to kick out the CEO just before the iPhone
launched, remember. That's power!

> > 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.

Verizon doesn't have any product at the level of the iPhone, they got
screwed since they didn't realize how popular the iPhone would become,
especially so quickly. Pricing is the same, but your right,
"fictionality" isn't as strong on the iPhone

> >> 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.

actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
move. The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
high end device. Yes, that could change, but it illustrates flaws within
that approach so it cannot yet be used. Apple is the king maker, so what
they "say" goes for the rest of the industry. It's how they work and
it's how "you will work" once you move up to an iPhone.

You can thank them later.

-

I'll be waiting for you to mis*****. 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Weaver" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> daya? what the hell?

not bright enough to figure it out, oxford? ;D

<snip>

"IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> 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.

"ed" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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...

yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.

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

> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
> still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> aren't to long product lives.

It remains to be seen whether the iPhone will be treated more like a Mac
(5-6 years worth of compatible updates -- but you have to pay for some
of them) or more like an iPod (rarely any updates for old models once
new models come out).

Expecting a 7-15 year life from a cell phone is nuts, though.

[snip]

> actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> move. The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> high end device. Yes, that could change, but it illustrates flaws within
> that approach so it cannot yet be used. Apple is the king maker, so what
> they "say" goes for the rest of the industry. It's how they work and
> it's how "you will work" once you move up to an iPhone.

You're being bizarre again. It's virtually certain that Apple picked a
cell phone network operator first and then built the phone to use a
compatible technology, rather than the other way around. While there are
some things GSM does better than CDMA, the reverse is also true, and
honestly their capabilities are similar enough that most people have no
reason to care. (Unless they want to roam overseas.)

--
"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 <[email protected]> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
[email protected]:

> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>
> daya? what the hell?

Sorry- I should have known that a simpleton like you would need exact
*****ing. And playing the *****ing card as you have simply shows that
you have nothing of merit to contribute- it's a rather juvenile thing to
do.

The fact is- Apple has no data infrastructure.

>
>> > 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.
>
> that's strange, most all ISPs do,


No they don't.


> thus 802.11g provides "Unlimited Data"
> just like what you get on the iPhone either via 802.11g or via EDGE.
>
>> >> 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.
>
> no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older
but
> still like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> aren't to long product lives.

Sounds like you are an idiot and don't know anything about the market.
Your little fantasies are nothing more than that. Bring some documented
facts to the table next time, newbie.

>
>> > Steve has the upper hand now, so he can play ATT like a
>> > fiddle for better pricing,
>>
>> No he can't
>
> He now holds the golden phone,

a fad


> ATT's top selling smart phone and
> strongest source for new users to ATT.

And yet Verizon is getting ready to overtake them. Hmmmmm,,,,,

> Yes, he has a lot of power over
> them, he was even able to kick out the CEO just before the iPhone
> launched, remember. That's power!

No- that's delusion on your part.

>
>> > 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.
>
> Verizon doesn't have any product at the level of the iPhone,

You're right- they sell much more functional product.

> they got
> screwed since they didn't realize how popular the iPhone would become,
> especially so quickly. Pricing is the same, but your right,
> "fictionality" isn't as strong on the iPhone

Again with the *****ing. Does mommy know you're staying up so late?


>
>> >> 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.
>
> actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> move.

Which is why the iPhone is missing key functionality.


> The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> high end device.

Based on what?

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

> "ed" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > 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...
>
> yes, they failed at meeting high standards and lost the iPhone in the
> process. perhaps they'll wisen up and win a contract in the future.
>

No- they met all standards. They turned down the phone.

ZnU <[email protected]> wrote:

> > no, Apple doesn't build products like that. Apple will update the
> > current iPhone for about 5-6 years, then yes... it will become older but
> > still run like it does today and 5+ years from now. Obsolete for an Apple
> > product is around 7-15 years. Sounds like you are a windows user and
> > aren't used to long product lives.
>
> It remains to be seen whether the iPhone will be treated more like a Mac
> (5-6 years worth of compatible updates -- but you have to pay for some
> of them) or more like an iPod (rarely any updates for old models once
> new models come out).

yes, but my Gen 1 iPod works with iTunes in Leopard, so that's basically
6 years of "support"... and I'd expect it to work for several more years
as well. Sure, no major firmware or software upgrades, but it's still as
functional as it was the day it was purchased.

> Expecting a 7-15 year life from a cell phone is nuts, though.

yes, although i remember my dad had an old sprint phone that he used for
a little over 5 years, replace a battery year 4, kinda like what i had
to do with my iPod.

another advantage of the iPhone is there are no buttons to become
obsolete, so just put on a new OS/Apps and it's a new phone, no other
smart phone can work that way since it's "locked down" by its button
filled design.

> [snip]
>
> > actually, Apple examines technology to the extreme before they make a
> > move. The fact it doesn't have CDMA shows it's not worthy enough of a
> > high end device. Yes, that could change, but it illustrates flaws within
> > that approach so it cannot yet be used. Apple is the king maker, so what
> > they "say" goes for the rest of the industry. It's how they work and
> > it's how "you will work" once you move up to an iPhone.
>
> You're being bizarre again. It's virtually certain that Apple picked a
> cell phone network operator first and then built the phone to use a
> compatible technology, rather than the other way around. While there are
> some things GSM does better than CDMA, the reverse is also true, and
> honestly their capabilities are similar enough that most people have no
> reason to care. (Unless they want to roam overseas.)

nah, i just have more inside info that most. apple has been working on a
phone for about 20 years, (and as you know, some of apple's startup
money in 1976 came from phreaking ATT's network) so much of the
development and knowledge came from years of learning the phone/cell
market.

my hunch is ATT simply has a better long term infrastructure, has deeper
pockets than verizon, tmobile, etc... and is into other things besides
just phones. so it's a better fit for apple's future products anyway.

then there is the cultural aspect as was learned by the O2 rollout.
Verizon probably didn't have the talent Steve was looking for so... he
walked when they couldn't deliver.

-