The great iPhone hunt of 2007

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:38:07 -0400, "MuahMan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"chrisv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Geoff Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's why it
>>> sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.


Windows is so simple to use that Barnes and Noble has 50 some odd
books on how to use it.

Windows for Idiots is very popular.

---

› See More: The great iPhone hunt of 2007

Geoff Miller wrote:

> Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's
> why it sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.

How does it "sell" as well as it does? An OEM agreement with the
manufacturer to preinstall an OS that raises the price of the machine
more than it's equvalents would is not selling -- it's offering the
consumer no choice without adding cost to already added cost. Take a
look at Windows Vista upgrade & full install sales, when it's not
preinstalled -- dismal.

> Not that there aren't better O/S's out there. But do Chevies suck
> because they aren't Lexuses? Of course not. They and their

Your comparison might have been more "real world" if you had compared
say Chevy & Toyota. But, then again, even with the added cost, is
Lexus really that much better just because it costs more? :-) I've
never really had a need for a car that parks itself. ;-)

> equivalents are perfectly satisfactory for most people most of the
> time, and are cost-effective in the bargain.

I'll agree that Windows works perfectly well for most. But, if you
look at the pricing for Dell computers, the choice of linux & Windows
preinstalled has the Windows boxes more expensive than the alternative.
So, when the customer is given a choice, what makes the more expensive
Windows installation more cost effective?


--
Bill K

Larry wrote:

> You guys want a great example of how stupid people are?
>
> One word - Amsoil
>
> Call 'em up a the bottling plant and ask 'em the address of the
> REFINERY...

Since when does synthetic oil go through a refinery? Nobody can tell
you what refinery Mobil One comes from, either.

--
Bill K

[email protected] () wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:38:07 -0400, "MuahMan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"chrisv" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Geoff Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows works just fine for most people most of the time.
>>>> That's why it sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't
>>>> suck.
>
>
> Windows is so simple to use that Barnes and Noble has 50 some odd
> books on how to use it.
>
> Windows for Idiots is very popular.

Does that mean that Windows is hard to use, or just that there are a
lot of idiots trying to use it?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | [email protected]

In article <[email protected]>,
Scott en Aztl?n <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> said in misc.consumers:
>
> >> The fact that so many fat chicks are wearing Britney-Spears-style
> >> hip-huggers and belly shirts even though their flab is hanging out all
> >> over the place is proof positive that the American consumer is more
> >> influenced by trendiness than suckiness (or lack thereof).
> >


Muffintops are big in the midwest.

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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>> Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's why it
>>>> sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.
>>> And McDonalds makes the best burgers.
>>> Idiot.
>> No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works fine
>> for most people. That's why they sell so much.
>
> That doesn't make McDonald's good. Rather, that makes most people
> stupid.
>
> Of course, some of us don't need that extra proof, but thank you anyway.
>


McD's = Mystery Meat.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

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

> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
> >>like?
> >
> > One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
> > apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
> > wherever I want.
>
> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.


There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints
about the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only
handles mp3 data.

When the world said goodbye to vinyl and embraced compact discs, I was
very excited. I was involved in the industry and I know how hard the
scientists at PDO (Philips-duPont Optical) and Sony worked to get the
finest possibly quality out of the technology.

Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion from
Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again. Wouldn't
surprise me if a proper test found that mp3 is vastly inferior to the
best that vinyl offered.

Apple was overpowered by Microsoft in the office. But they captured
first the desktop publishing industry (captured? Hell, they _invented
it!) then the pro and semi-pro audio industry. They also took and will
continue to take swipes at the semi-pro video industry. In other
words, creative art is Apple's strong point.

Moronic teenagers maybe can't tell the difference. Professionals surely
can and they wince. Why oh why would Apple shoot itself in the foot
like this? I'm very sad. And angry.

So why serve up this ****ty mp3 format ONLY?

In article <[email protected]>, Rod Speed
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
> > 98% of songs on iPods DO NOT COME FROM APPLE.
>
> You've just plucked that number out of your arse.
>


Wrong. Steve Jobs quoted some real figures recently. I forget, though,
if 98 was THE figure. But, if not, it's close.

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

John Bailo <[email protected]> signed off with:
>
--
> The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
> certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
> -- Bertrand Russel

He should've added "At least I think so!"

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

> > > > Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's why it
> > > > sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.
> >
> > > And McDonalds makes the best burgers.
> >
> > > Idiot.
> >
> > No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works fine
> > for most people. That's why they sell so much.

> That doesn't make McDonald's good.

A trivial, irrelevant point.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

Gamma <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
>>>> like?
>>>
>>> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music
>>> from apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3
>>> player from wherever I want.
>>
>> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
>> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.

> There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints about
> the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only handles mp3 data.

No it doesnt.

> When the world said goodbye to vinyl and embraced compact discs,
> I was very excited. I was involved in the industry and I know how
> hard the scientists at PDO (Philips-duPont Optical) and Sony
> worked to get the finest possibly quality out of the technology.

Irrelevant to what works fine with the sort of portable system an ipod is.

> Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion
> from Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again.

Mindlessly silly.

> Wouldn't surprise me if a proper test found that mp3
> is vastly inferior to the best that vinyl offered.

Irrelevant to what works fine with the sort of portable system an ipod is.

> Apple was overpowered by Microsoft in the office. But they captured
> first the desktop publishing industry (captured? Hell, they _invented it!)

No they didnt.

> then the pro and semi-pro audio industry. They also took and
> will continue to take swipes at the semi-pro video industry. In
> other words, creative art is Apple's strong point.

Just as well, they're a complete dud at everything else.

> Moronic teenagers maybe can't tell the difference. Professionals
> surely can and they wince. Why oh why would Apple shoot itself
> in the foot like this? I'm very sad. And angry.

Your problem.

> So why serve up this ****ty mp3 format ONLY?

They dont. And it clearly works well enough for hordes of people, and THATS what matters anyway.

Gamma <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Bill Gates <[email protected]> wrote

>>> 98% of songs on iPods DO NOT COME FROM APPLE.

>> You've just plucked that number out of your arse.

> Wrong. Steve Jobs quoted some real figures recently.

No he didnt, they were just plucked from someone else's arse.

> I forget, though, if 98 was THE figure. But, if not, it's close.

Nope, that particular number was plucked from his arse.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:09:17 -0700, Justin wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> Gamma wrote on [Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:55:44 +0400]:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Pegleg wrote on [Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:39:40 -0700]:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:04:18 -0000, [email protected] (Geoff Miller)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And why _would_ the iPod suck, exactly? What is it that you don't
>>>>> like?
>>>>
>>>> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
>>>> apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
>>>> wherever I want.
>>>
>>> Most people with an iPod do not buy music via iTunes, that has been
>>> stated again and again. You can put any mp3 on there you want.
>>
>>
>> There's no bigger Apple supporter than I yet I have several complaints
>> about the iPod/iTunes duet. One of them exactly being that it only
>> handles mp3 data.
>
> Actually, no. It prefers AAC, which is NOT Mp3. MP3 works, I believe WAV
> works too
>
>> Now, what do we have? The computer industry, with heavy collusion from
>> Apple, have effectively dumbed-down the technology again. Wouldn't
>> surprise me if a proper test found that mp3 is vastly inferior to the
>> best that vinyl offered.
>
> A 320kbit MP3 doesn't sound too terrible
>

Depends on who you are and what your standards are. I can listen to MP3 in
the car because the noise floor is so high that it masks any artifacts. I
cannot, however stand the sound of any MP3 on my home stereo system or on
headphones.

On 2007-06-18, Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gamma <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Bill Gates <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>> 98% of songs on iPods DO NOT COME FROM APPLE.
>
>>> You've just plucked that number out of your arse.
>
>> Wrong. Steve Jobs quoted some real figures recently.
>
> No he didnt, they were just plucked from someone else's arse.
>
>> I forget, though, if 98 was THE figure. But, if not, it's close.
>
> Nope, that particular number was plucked from his arse.

Divide the number of songs sold via iTunes by the number of iPods in the
field, and you will get an upper limit for the average number of songs
from Apple per iPod. The number is something around ~30ish. Unless
people are buying iPods much larger than the need, you can correctly
conclude that only a small percentage of songs on most people's iPods
are purchased from Apple.

Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Gamma <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Bill Gates <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> 98% of songs on iPods DO NOT COME FROM APPLE.

>>>> You've just plucked that number out of your arse.

>>> Wrong. Steve Jobs quoted some real figures recently.

>> No he didnt, they were just plucked from someone else's arse.

>>> I forget, though, if 98 was THE figure. But, if not, it's close.

>> Nope, that particular number was plucked from his arse.

> Divide the number of songs sold via iTunes by the number
> of iPods in the field, and you will get an upper limit for the
> average number of songs from Apple per iPod.

Useless for determining the total number of songs on those
ipods that didnt come from Apple and hence the percentage.

> The number is something around ~30ish.

You've just plucked that number out of your arse too.

> Unless people are buying iPods much larger than the need,

Or they just buy what happens to be available etc.

> you can correctly conclude that only a small percentage of
> songs on most people's iPods are purchased from Apple.

Doesnt alter the fact that that 98 percent figure is just plucked out of someone's arse.

And it isnt a static number with many either, most ended up binning
some stuff when they ran out of space and are much more likely to
bin stuff that they dont have to pay for again if they want it again etc.