Next Up - The iPhone in China

Snit <[email protected]> wrote in news:C360A8B6.9947E%
[email protected]:

> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
> [email protected] on 11/14/07 1:19 PM:
>
>> Snit <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:C3609F61.9945E%[email protected]:
>>
>>> "John Mason" <[email protected]> stated in post
>>> [email protected] on 11/14/07 12:46 PM:
>>>
>>>>> The multi-touch party stars here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.iphone.com/
>>>>>
>>>> In what ways, with the exception of the user interface, is the iPhone
>>>> more advanced?
>>>
>>> With the exception of the user interface? Why?
>>
>> Because that function alone does not represent advanced cellular
>> functionality.
>
> A better UI allows for better use of functions by the user - the only
> standard that matters. If you have a device with a million features but
> most people cannot use them then what good is the device?

Better than one that doesn't offer those features, which would be the
iPhone.

---

› See More: Next Up - The iPhone in China

"CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/14/07 1:42 PM:

> Snit <[email protected]> wrote in news:C360A8B6.9947E%
> [email protected]:
>
>> "CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
>> [email protected] on 11/14/07 1:19 PM:
>>
>>> Snit <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:C3609F61.9945E%[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> "John Mason" <[email protected]> stated in post
>>>> [email protected] on 11/14/07 12:46 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>> The multi-touch party stars here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.iphone.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>> In what ways, with the exception of the user interface, is the iPhone
>>>>> more advanced?
>>>>
>>>> With the exception of the user interface? Why?
>>>
>>> Because that function alone does not represent advanced cellular
>>> functionality.
>>
>> A better UI allows for better use of functions by the user - the only
>> standard that matters. If you have a device with a million features but
>> most people cannot use them then what good is the device?
>
> Better than one that doesn't offer those features, which would be the
> iPhone.

Two hypothetical phones:

Phone A: has 100 features... but generally only 6 are used because people
rarely figure out how to use the other 94 or, if they do, they do not need
them.

Phone B: Has 12 features... all often used because they are all easy to get
to and useful.

Sure, there may be cases where Phone A is the better option... but in
general Phone B is the way to go.


--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

Snit <[email protected]> wrote in
news:C360AE23.99490%[email protected]:


>
> Two hypothetical phones:
>
> Phone A: has 100 features... but generally only 6 are used because
> people rarely figure out how to use the other 94 or, if they do, they
> do not need them.

This would be the exception, rather than the rule.

>
> Phone B: Has 12 features... all often used because they are all easy
> to get to and useful.
>
> Sure, there may be cases where Phone A is the better option... but in
> general Phone B is the way to go.
>
>

Only if the 12 festures contain the 6 on phone A and if the pricing is
equal.

Many phones that blow the doors off the iPhone for true functionality and
features can be had for half the price.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Oxford wrote:
> but the Nokia screen is very poor at resolution, 800x480 doesn't mean
> much if the screen is fuzzy, of poor quality. The iPhone far and away is
> clearer than the Nokia at any resolution. It's all to do with Apple uses
> better screens and has more control over those screens. Nokia doesn't
> have any experience with video screens.

ROTFL!

It's funny to see Oxtard come up with statements like this out of thin
air.

This is the first that anyone has ever claimed that the screen on the
Nokia N800 was "fuzzy" or "of poor quality" compared to the iPhone.

Most people who see the two side by size say the opposite. Obviously,
Oxtard has never seen a Nokia N800.

Let's talk about text (as in reading email). The iPhone is incapable of
rendering readable text in, say, standard 24x80 dimensions. You can't
draw readable text that is only 3 pixels wide, but that's the best you can
do with iPhone. That's why you need multitouch on iPhone; you
constantly have to zoom back and forth.

A Nokia N800 displays a 14 point font in 24x80 in the default xterm, and
in full screen mode displays 29x111.

> Yes, and you can use Skype with the iPhone, big deal.

There is no Skype client for the iPhone.

> But not having WiFi is very rare. Just curious to you live in
> Washington, a kinda "backwater technological" State? If so, now we know
> why you get confused. Move to a more modern area and you'll see what I'm
> talking about.

ROTFL!

This boy sure doesn't know much about the world outside his mother's
basement, does he?

> The iPhone screen is bigger than most any Nokia, it's the biggest
> screen'd small phone you can buy.

ROTFL!

Evidentally Oxtard has never been to Japan either.

> What is broken WiFi? You mean symbian
> WiFi or Windows WiFi. On OSX, WiFi works great.

Evidentally Oxtard isn't old enough to go on business trips and deal with
Wi-Fi in hotels.

> Macs wouldn't have that problem since they set all the standards for
> wifi in the first place.

ROTFL.

That is news to IEEE.

-- Mark --

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

At 14 Nov 2007 12:59:30 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> can't think of the last time i need to use cells for data, what would
be
> the point mark? using normal 802.11 is much faster.

Except wherever you have WiFi, you probably have your Macbook, don't you?
Cellular data is for all points in-between home and work.


> but the Nokia screen is very poor at resolution,

Again, come back after you've seen it- two days ago you didn't know what
an N800 was, so clearly you've never used one.

> 800x480 doesn't mean
> much if the screen is fuzzy, of poor quality.

True, but in the N800's case it isn't and isn't.

> The iPhone far and away is
> clearer than the Nokia at any resolution.

That would be so much more convincingif you spoke from experience instead
of rhetoric...

It's all to do with Apple uses
> better screens and has more control over those screens. Nokia doesn't
> have any experience with video screens.
>
> Yes, and you can use Skype with the iPhone, big deal.

No, as you well know, you can't. You can use a dial-around service like
Shape or Mobivox, but that rewuires Cellular service and uses your
cellular plan minutes. One of the advantages of Skype, at least for me,
is that it works where I might be out of cell range but have WiFi (some
large hotels, for instance, have poor cell coverage inside, but free WiFi)
or overseas, where Skype of WiFi is cheaper than international roaming.

> But not having WiFi is very rare.

No it isn't. You didn't bother looking at Navizon.com, did you?

> Just curious to you live in
> Washington, a kinda "backwater technological" State?

Compared to your Minnesota? The "Silicon Valley" of the upper Midwest?

> Macs wouldn't have that problem since they set all the
> standards for wifi in the first place.

Clueless. Many small hotels, particularly off the beaten track, source
their WiFi from a single connection, often via satellite. That might be
a single 2 or 3MB connection shared by every on-line guest in the hotel!
It doesn't matter if it's hooked to a Mac, a PC or a Cray XT4, that's
dialup-speed when 20 or 30 guests start sharing it!

I've stayed in hotels where my EDGE connection was snappier than the
hotel's "broadband."

At 14 Nov 2007 12:51:39 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> > ...and within range of your computer, lessenig the need to surf the
web,
> > check e-mail, get directions or download music on a phone. (Did I
cover
> > the only things a connecte iPhone can do?)
>
> you missed about 30 other things, but don't let that bother you.


Like what? Remote terminal access? VoIP? NNTP? Sat nav? Edumicate
me, please, oh Mac Master! What can your iPhone do that I missed on that
list? (I'll conceed I missed "access YouTube Mobile.")

>
> but you always have your PC with you anyway. or at least I do. I know
> I'm a more advanced user that most, but still...

Quite the opposite. Why carry that clunky Macbook around? If you had a
truly advanced mobile phone, you wouldn't need to carry a laptop, since
your mobile phone would replicate virtually all of it's functions. For
the few things it didn't, you just could access your computer from
anywhere in the world remotely, if, for example, you forgot to bring a
file with you. (Mention it to SJ- he'll probably throw a MacBook at you
and yell "There's your f---ing Remote Terminal Service!")

You really should upgrade to a full-featured smartphone one of these
days, Oxford, if they sell them in Minnesota yet. Someone in that big
mall of yours must sell Treos or HTC phones...

"CozmicDebris" <isheforreal> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/14/07 2:33 PM:

> Snit <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:C360AE23.99490%[email protected]:
>
>
>>
>> Two hypothetical phones:
>>
>> Phone A: has 100 features... but generally only 6 are used because
>> people rarely figure out how to use the other 94 or, if they do, they
>> do not need them.
>
> This would be the exception, rather than the rule.

The numbers might be a bit of an exaggeration to make a point - but often
people know have no clue how to use their phones.

>> Phone B: Has 12 features... all often used because they are all easy
>> to get to and useful.
>>
>> Sure, there may be cases where Phone A is the better option... but in
>> general Phone B is the way to go.
>
> Only if the 12 festures contain the 6 on phone A and if the pricing is
> equal.

Pricing, of course, would play a part.

> Many phones that blow the doors off the iPhone for true functionality and
> features can be had for half the price.

You are back to merely counting features. That is not what the iPhone is
about.

--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain

At 14 Nov 2007 13:29:26 -0700 Snit wrote:

> A better UI allows for better use of functions by the user - the only
> standard that matters.


Not really. I personally can't use an EKG machine, nor do I find the
interface particularly intuitive. Fortunately, my doctor has been
trained in it's use.

Now I'm not saying my WinMo phone requires an MD to operate (not quite,
anyway!) ;-) But my point is that I'd rather have the _option_ to use a
feature with a stiff learning curve, rather than not have the feature at
all, in the interest of keeping the device "simple."

> If you have a device with a million features but
> most people cannot use them then what good is the device?


Very good to the few that will take the time to use them. The rest that
don't need those features can ignore them, or buy an iPhone. Maybe
setting up a VPN, or remote services is slightly more difficult than
viewing a YouTube video, but the addition or deletion of features
shouldn't solely be based on "can we show this feature being used in a 30-
second commercial."

> Note, I am not saying that the iPhone is the best phone on the
> planet or whatever - just speaking in hypothetical terms.


As am I- obviously the iPhone has a fantastic UI, and does several neat
things VERY well- occasionally better than any other mobile device I've
played with. It's just fun picking apart Oxy's ridiculous arguments.
God bless him, though- I'm sure you guys in CSMA are tired of his fanboy
rants, but here in alt.cellular.att, things are pretty darn quiet without
his insane ramblings!

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/14/07 4:35 PM:

> At 14 Nov 2007 13:29:26 -0700 Snit wrote:
>
>> A better UI allows for better use of functions by the user - the only
>> standard that matters.
>
> Not really. I personally can't use an EKG machine, nor do I find the
> interface particularly intuitive. Fortunately, my doctor has been
> trained in it's use.

So the user... the doctor... is able to use the functions. Excellent.

> Now I'm not saying my WinMo phone requires an MD to operate (not quite,
> anyway!) ;-) But my point is that I'd rather have the _option_ to use a
> feature with a stiff learning curve, rather than not have the feature at
> all, in the interest of keeping the device "simple."

Sadly many people do look at number of functions and not functions they will
use... but the iPod shows this is not always the case.

>> If you have a device with a million features but
>> most people cannot use them then what good is the device?
>
> Very good to the few that will take the time to use them.

Right... for those few.

> The rest that don't need those features can ignore them, or buy an iPhone.

Exactly: likely for most people the iPhone would be the better choice
(assuming it has the features people really need - I do not know enough of
the cell phone industry to say). Presumably, though, it not only has the
most commonly used features it *also* makes them easier *and* more
attractive to use... and adds things others do not have (such as the way it
handles voice mail). It might also lack some fairly common things... in
which case I would suspect they will be added via software updates... or a
v2 phone.

> Maybe setting up a VPN, or remote services is slightly more difficult than
> viewing a YouTube video, but the addition or deletion of features shouldn't
> solely be based on "can we show this feature being used in a 30- second
> commercial."

Based on a 30 second commercial? Not sure what you are getting at. No
reason to think Apple does that if that is what you mean.

>> Note, I am not saying that the iPhone is the best phone on the
>> planet or whatever - just speaking in hypothetical terms.
>
> As am I- obviously the iPhone has a fantastic UI, and does several neat
> things VERY well- occasionally better than any other mobile device I've
> played with. It's just fun picking apart Oxy's ridiculous arguments.

Ah... that I have no problem with.

> God bless him, though- I'm sure you guys in CSMA are tired of his fanboy
> rants, but here in alt.cellular.att, things are pretty darn quiet without
> his insane ramblings!

Fair enough.



--
Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination. --Albert Einstein

At 14 Nov 2007 12:46:28 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> so they shrunk by 400,000? ouch.

I forgot- you're "good with numbers." They grew by 1.6m.
>the iPhone is eating them up.

Actually both beat their net adds vs. this quarter last year.

> and actually 2/3rds of iphone users are new to AT&T.

Actually, no:

http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...6020/1011/free

If you want to pretend you know anything about the wireless industry,
start by reading the RCR News site- you'll pick up a few things, even if
only by accident.

"AT&T said that more than 40% of iPhone activations were new customers."

Just a hint for you - 40% is less than half of 100%...

Snit <[email protected]> wrote in
news:C360D3B4.994F0%[email protected]:


>
> You are back to merely counting features. That is not what the iPhone
> is about.
>

No- I'm counting used commonly used features. GPS, 3G data transfer and
seamless email syncing are just a few of commonly used features missing
from the iPhone. And I haven't even gone into the list of "features" on
the iPhone that are fairly useless, despite claims of "cutting edge
technology."

<snip>
do you realize this discussion is cross posted with the following groups:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.verizon,alt.cellular.nokia,alt.cellular.t-mobile

In news:[email protected],
jerryeveretts <[email protected]> typed:
>>> Since when is that NOT the case with hotel Wi-Fi?
>>
>> Since forever, Jerry didn't know how to setup his wifi or was using a
>> windows machine. Macs wouldn't have that problem since they set all the
>> standards for wifi in the first place.
>
> Ummm... Bull****? I am using a Macbook Pro. and I was showing full
> bars on signal, and it was working albeit very slow. So slow that my
> VPN connection to work would time out. Like I said. the connection to
> the network was perfect, the hotels connection to the internet was
> obviously gimped.


Too bad Oxtard didn't share how to get a Macbook Pro to make the hotel's
Internet connection work at high speed. lol

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> You really should upgrade to a full-featured smartphone one of these
> days, Oxford, if they sell them in Minnesota yet. Someone in that big
> mall of yours must sell Treos or HTC phones...

Sorry, but I sold my Treo because it lacked the functionality and ease
of use of the iPhone. Let's not even talk about the instability of many
of the 3rd party apps... Tiny screen, too.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the Treo - until something better came along.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

At 14 Nov 2007 18:39:36 -0800 Kurt wrote:

> Sorry, but I sold my Treo because it lacked the functionality and ease
> of use of the iPhone.

I know. I just trying to write "Oxford style," which requires:

a) A blanket statement that equipment you own is better for all purposes
than anyone else's,

b) You are better/smarter than everyone else, and,

c) you live in a "technologically advanced area," unlike the poster you
are replying to, who apparently is still waiting for rural
electrification to hit his locale...


I think my post met the required elements! ;-)