reply to discussion
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 196 to 203 of 203
  1. #196
    News
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS



    Rashputin wrote:
    > "IMHO IIRC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>In news:[email protected],
    >>ed <[email protected]> typed:
    >>
    >>>"Oxford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>news:[email protected]..
    >>>
    >>>>News <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>...And can roam seamlessly between cells/APs...
    >>>>
    >>>>as you can with apple's wireless base stations since the beginning of
    >>>>802.11 time...
    >>>>
    >>>>http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=58596
    >>>
    >>>uh, yeah, but the basestations need to be connected together with
    >>>ethernet...
    >>>
    >>><snip>

    >>
    >>Minor insignificant detail. Oxford might be working on a plan to
    >>implement
    >>this everywhere and for free. lol
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Yeah, if it's "hip" enough, whether it loses money or not won't matter.
    > He'll lose money on every installation and every minute someone uses it but
    > he'll make it up in volume (volume of shares of stock sold to idiots, that
    > is).
    >
    >



    And if it's "hip" enough, the fashionistas and fashion victims will
    assume away the pain of poor performance. More KoolAid, please.



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




  2. #197
    CozmicDebris
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

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

    > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    >
    >> I have very high standards- the fact that I didn't fall for the
    >> iPhone hype proves that.

    >
    > what hype? i have seen or heard of any surrounding the iphone. it's
    > just the facts...


    No- the facxts are that beside the glitzy interface, the iPhone falls very
    short in terms of functionality. You choose to ignore that.


    > the fact you are jealous of iphone users...


    Why would I be jealous? My phone is far more advanced than the iPhone.

    > and the
    > fact you are still using Xnews/5.04.25, so by default you don't have
    > high standards.


    Or maybe I have a life. I have no need for anything more than Xnews.





  3. #198
    Kurt
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

    In article <[email protected]>,
    CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:

    > Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I have very high standards- the fact that I didn't fall for the
    > >> iPhone hype proves that.

    > >
    > > what hype? i have seen or heard of any surrounding the iphone. it's
    > > just the facts...

    >
    > No- the facxts are that beside the glitzy interface, the iPhone falls very
    > short in terms of functionality. You choose to ignore that.
    >
    >
    > > the fact you are jealous of iphone users...

    >
    > Why would I be jealous? My phone is far more advanced than the iPhone.
    >
    > > and the
    > > fact you are still using Xnews/5.04.25, so by default you don't have
    > > high standards.

    >
    > Or maybe I have a life. I have no need for anything more than Xnews.


    'Nuff said. LOL.

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



  4. #199
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

    In article <[email protected]pangtzu.panda.com>,
    Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Wrong, bunkie. If you're talking about phones, then the war is over.
    >
    > As a phone, the iPhone is a loser.

    So you continue to argue (badly!) exactly the point you were about to
    declare was already decided? I don't think even you believe the iPhone
    is so damned.

    > Apple fanboys glom onto iPhone's web browser, Wi-Fi, and 320x480 screen,
    > without realizing that those capabilities HAVE NO VALUE for a phone.
    > Those are mobile device features.

    Thus, the device is not being marketed or purchased solely as a phone.
    It is a multi-function device. It is simply different from the
    multi-function devices YOU assume are important.

    > The moment you start talking about mobile devices, you have to judge the
    > product by the standards of mobile devices. And by those standards iPhone
    > is also inferior.

    Nope; you just showed two examples it is superior in several ways.
    Apparently, you are determined to ignore even your own evidence.

    > One way, it's a ****ty phone.

    How so? Statement alone carries no weight!

    > The other way, it's a ****ty mobile device.

    How so? Statement alone carries no weight!

    > Either way, it is overpriced.

    It's right in line with all the devices you have shown to be superior
    (which turned out to be totally different!)

    > I don't really care about iPhone at all. My disdain is for fanboys.

    No, your disdain, as noted above in horribly angry tones, is clearly
    for the iPhone device. You made that EXTREMELY clear.

    > I don't want to kill Apple as a company either. Apple serves an important
    > purpose; it keeps Microsoft honest. Apple also provides an unending
    > source of amusement with its silly fanboys.

    Again, loaded with disdain and hatred. In spite of everything Microsoft
    does wrongly, you are determined to hate Apple, just because people are
    happy with some products of theirs.

    > iPhone is also a crossover, this time between phones and mobile devices.

    Can't be a 'crossover' -- there is no category of 'mobile devices.'
    It's a general term, used because the functions are so widely varied.
    That's why you keep missing where iPhone is good -- you keep claiming
    it has to fit what some other device already does well.

    > If it is priced competitively and unlocked, it might have a future;
    > although that low-resolution screen needs to be upgraded sooner rather
    > than later.

    It's not low-res no matter how many times you type that stupidity.
    It's not even low-res compared to other devices!

    > Nonetheless, it is neither the ultimate phone nor the
    > ultimate mobile device, except in the feverish minds of fanboys.

    Outside Oxford, I haven't seen ANYBODY claim it to be the 'ultimate'
    anything! -- is this why you are so upset? Most are claiming it's a
    good device, or an amazing device, not the 'ultimate' device.

    Here's a blog you might like:
    http://tabletblog.com/2007/09/ipod-t...ling-other.htm
    l



  5. #200
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

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

    > All this means that you can't answer the criticisms:

    Finally! a list of actual complaints!

    > As a mobile phone, iPhone omits many standard features

    Omits nothing as a phone. It provides two new features and does
    EVERYTHING that other phones do. Or would you give an example?
    > of modern mobile
    > phones and is locked to an obsolete EDGE network.

    The network is heavily used, and modern devices made for it. That means
    'obsolete' is simply a know-nothing LIE.
    The way it is less desirable is that there is a faster kind of network,
    one which itself is going to be superceded soon.

    > As a mobile device, iPhone has inadequate screen resolution,

    Huh? Inadequate compared to the other phones you cited? Or simply
    inadequate compared to the much larger portable devices you keep
    citing?
    In either case, it's not inadequate to the tasks it's given -- quite
    the opposite -- people seem to be very impressed, in comparison.

    > doesn't support current web technology,

    It supports many current Web technologies. Apparently you are
    pretending that Java and Flash alone describe all Web techs.

    > and doesn't allow third-party apps (not yet, anyway).

    And you haven't shown they are necessary. No, you didn't even show they
    were desirable, but we can assume many users would like some.

    > As a high-end MP3 player, iPhone's memory capability is woefully
    > inadequate.

    That's just STUPID. There are plenty devices with less, and that's
    because previous history showed that a 256 MB device was quite useful
    and enjoyable. Just because there is more today doesn't mean the
    previous models were inadequate.

    > It's a jack of all trades, and master of none.

    Then consider it from some angle other than your extremely narrow
    viewpoint, which was apparently molded entirely fom some previous
    device. As a portable photo viewer, it's better than everything. It
    might be the smallest and slimmest video player with a decent screen.
    By reviewers, it's got the most interesting and impressive interface of
    any recent device made.

    > Nobody would buy it if it
    > was called the Microsoft Zune phone instead of the Apple iPhone.

    But for a different reason than features, yes?

    > iPhone is an overpriced and overhyped flash in the pan. Now that every
    > fanboy who wanted one has one, there's no more market.

    As nonsensical and unsupported as Oxford's BS. Total nonsense, utterly
    unredeemable.

    > iPhone will not
    > kill other mobile phones, nor seize control of the mobile phone market for
    > Apple.

    Who said it had to? Who said Apple wanted to? Who said any company
    should EVER EVEN TRY?

    > iPod Touch, iPhone's ugly sister, is in worse shape.

    Your stupid angry and childish comments are beyond hope.
    If you haven't got any of the points by now, forget all of us, and stop
    posting to uninvolved groups.



  6. #201
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

    In article <[email protected]>, Elmo
    P. Shagnasty <[email protected]> wrote:

    > >
    > > Going forward, it's inevitable the entire planet is going to be governed
    > > by free wireless access, so why fight it Todd?

    >
    > "going to be governed by free wireless access"??? I thought your claim
    > was that there ALREADY IS free wireless access everywhere.


    I'm rather stunned trying to figure out how the world is going to be
    "governed" by a service that happens to be provided?

    "Governed?"


    I thought he was just claiming that it was going to transform the
    wireless services, then it seems he was claiming it was going to take
    over all such services, (as it is!), then he was claiming it already
    was available everywhere, then that it was going to propel one device
    because that device uses it, among all the others.

    Now it's going to RULE US?



  7. #202
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

    In article <[email protected]>, David
    Friedman <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > 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?


    He's full of it with the proposal, anyway.
    Look at how iPhone works -- it zooms on the page. That means it does
    NOT have to fit the whole page width to begin. It just needs to make
    zooming and scrolling easy to show what isn't there at native sizes.

    Since it does, we should be able to count it as successfully showing a
    full page.



  8. #203
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: NO!! Oxford is FULL of crap - as ALWAYS

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

    > 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.

    Yes, all correct.
    Assuming the confines of device size and cost, which are critical to
    comparing any such 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).

    800x480. Not 'slightly' larger -- (16.8 sq in > 10.8 sq in)
    Similarly heavier.
    So for $100 less, you get a much larger device but with a much larger
    screen, Java and Flash. But no memory, no camera, and no phone.
    Clearly, these are not _comparable_ devices at all, but totally
    different devices for totally different uses.

    > Sony UX
    > series has a screen which is only slightly larger than that, but is a
    > whopping 1024x600 pixels.

    Right -- it's over SIX TIMES bigger in volume.
    It's THREE TIMES the price.
    Again, not even close to comparable. The UX series is trying to be a
    micro-laptop, not a phone or PDA or music player.

    > 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.

    Yet, according to your own statements, not the consumers in the US. So
    are you saying they should NOT be happy with what they can buy now?

    > So are phone users in Japan.

    Also, not American consumers.
    You could change this to a discussion about how there shouldn't be a
    difference between offerings in different markets. Or you could chagne
    it to a discussion about how no one should ever buy a feature that some
    other country already enjoyed. Clearly, that is pointless and foolish.



  • Similar Threads







  • Quick Reply Quick Reply

    If you are already a member, please login above.