The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons

Kurt <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> [email protected] (Avery) wrote

>>>>> which is all the more surprising since it's a touch-screen

>>>> I can't WAIT to see that first cellphone bill after the touch
>>>> screen has been in a shirt pocket touching the pens and
>>>> glasses or the stuff it touched on a holster/pouch...(c;

>>>> No WONDER cellphone companies want us to have it....REVENUES!

>>> It's got a lock. I don't understand the problem.

>> The problem is remembering to lock it.

> A lot easier than the logistical nightmare for functionality
> for performing tasks on any of the smartphones and
> PDAs out there (and I have a Treo).

You wanna try a Nokia.

> I'll take this any day.

I wont on the lack of support for third party apps alone.

I like the idea of a touch screen, I love my TomTom.

---

› See More: The iPhone's Top Pros and Cons

Peter Pan wrote:
> It's not a CDMA phone, so why is it here (in this newsgroup)

Look up. See those three newsgroups (formerly five)?
If you don't want it in "that" newsgroup,
why did you leave that one on the list
when you quoted it?


--
Wes Groleau
Genealogical Lookups:
http://groleau.freeshell.org/ref/lookups.shtml

Kurt wrote:

> I'll take this any day.

I won't--not for $450

(not even for $150)

--
Wes Groleau
------
"The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
they know that most men can see better than they can think."
-- James Dobson

Larry wrote:
> Multi-finger gestures
> Patented! (though I don't see how that is a feature..(c

Use two fingers to "squeeze" or "stretch" to change size of something.

--
Wes Groleau

Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.

Larry wrote:
> the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
> carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
>
> "Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.

I have no idea how solid its metal case is,
but it doesn't look flimsy to me.


--
Wes Groleau

What kind of smiley is C:\ ?

>>>>> "none" == none <[email protected]> writes:
none> You are still trying to use Windows, so that's probably part
none> of the problem.

Vista Ultimate x64 & iTunes don't seem to do well (in Firefox)....in
XP Pro I can see it OK.
--
"If brute force doesn't solve your problems, then you aren't using
enough."

Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote:

> Larry wrote:
> > the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
> > carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
> >
> > "Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.
>
> I have no idea how solid its metal case is,
> but it doesn't look flimsy to me.

you need to keep in mind the outer ring is one continuous "arch", the
strongest design element you can choose.

actually, it looks rock solid to me, plenty of engineering went into
this one. and since there are no moving parts, nothing can fail, so sure
the glass screen could scratch, but not as bad as plastic cell phones,
so it looks like another winner here.

none <[email protected]> wrote in news:a-2E1788.22011823062007@mpls-nnrp-
02.inet.qwest.net:

> Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>> > the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
>> > carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
>> >
>> > "Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.
>>
>> I have no idea how solid its metal case is,
>> but it doesn't look flimsy to me.
>
> you need to keep in mind the outer ring is one continuous "arch", the
> strongest design element you can choose.

The strongest design elementif you are trying to bear weight . No better
than any other shape when designing the outline of a phone.

>
> actually, it looks rock solid to me, plenty of engineering went into
> this one. and since there are no moving parts, nothing can fail,

except the touchscreen itself (leaving the phone utterly useless) or any
number of electrical components or connections failing from the constant
flexing and compressing of the unit as the touchscreen is used and abused.


> so sure
> the glass screen could scratch, but not as bad as plastic cell phones,
> so it looks like another winner here.
>

none <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>>> the flaws they forgot....like what's gonna happen when its very-thin
>>> carcass gets flexed by some body pressure, just for instance.
>>>
>>> "Flimsy" comes to mind...just looking at it.
>>
>> I have no idea how solid its metal case is,
>> but it doesn't look flimsy to me.

> you need to keep in mind the outer ring is one continuous "arch",
> the strongest design element you can choose.

No it isnt, a sphere is much stronger.

> actually, it looks rock solid to me, plenty of engineering went into
> this one. and since there are no moving parts, nothing can fail, so
> sure the glass screen could scratch, but not as bad as plastic cell
> phones, so it looks like another winner here.

At 24 Jun 2007 00:08:30 +0000 Larry wrote:

> We'll see how "Ignores Unintended Touches" plays out after the first
bill
> comes in...(c;


I'll give Apple enough credit to have thought of a way to prevent that.

> I've never seen any device that, touching the glasses in my pocket,
> "ignores unintended touches", like dialing Bangledesh Parliament at
> $2.50/minute.

I'll toss this idea out there just as an example- what if the touchscreen
is capacitance driven, and needs skin (or it's equivalent) to operate,
like an old touchlamp?

There- I'm not an engineer and I solved the problem of it dialing
Bangladesh in 15-seconds. Surely Apple's engineers are far smarter than I,
and have more resources.

> It'll be interesting to watch.... Sorry I put the hawkers panties in a
> wad....well, NOT.

Frankly this whole thread extolling the virtues and condemning the sins
of a device that not one of us has touched, used, or even seen outside of
a commercial or promotional video is ridiculous for anything other than
entertainment value anyway.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

> > you need to keep in mind the outer ring is one continuous "arch",
> > the strongest design element you can choose.
>
> No it isnt, a sphere is much stronger.

that's why it's an entire band, in this application, it is the strongest
configuration that you can build.

none <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> none <[email protected]> wrote

>>> you need to keep in mind the outer ring is one continuous "arch",
>>> the strongest design element you can choose.

>> No it isnt, a sphere is much stronger.

> that's why it's an entire band, in this application,
> it is the strongest configuration that you can build.

Still not as strong as a sphere.

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

> >> No it isnt, a sphere is much stronger.
>
> > that's why it's an entire band, in this application,
> > it is the strongest configuration that you can build.
>
> Still not as strong as a sphere.

when a cell phone is sold in the shape of a ball, you'll be right, but
until then... Apple's arched band will make it the strongest cell phone
ever made.

none <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> none <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> none <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>> you need to keep in mind the outer ring is one continuous "arch",
>>>>> the strongest design element you can choose.

>>>> No it isnt, a sphere is much stronger.

>>> that's why it's an entire band, in this application,
>>> it is the strongest configuration that you can build.

>> Still not as strong as a sphere.

> when a cell phone is sold in the shape of a ball, you'll be right, but until then...
> Apple's arched band will make it the strongest cell phone ever made.

Nothing like your original silly claim, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist.

And you're just plain wrong with even just cell phones too.

On Jun 23, 5:31 pm, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
> zeez <[email protected]> wrote in news:1182595011.544149.207130
> @a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > <rant mode on> The one thing that really bothers me about cell phones
> > is that they are being used
> > to get users used to the idea that the phone (i'll call it a computer
> > for now on scince that's what modern
> > cellphones basicly are) isn't really theirs, and that companies and
> > only companies have the right to
> > decide what you are allowed to run on the computer you bought, down to
> > the very programs on it in some
> > cases. Anything else is forbidden, and anybody who tries to use the
> > computer for anything other that
> > what the companies explicity says must be an evil hacker or an outlaw.
> > This is like the Trusted Computing
> > bull****, but even more draconian. <rant mode off>
>
> One fine post. Very well said.
>
> Remember when we were all going to be running JAVA programs from some
> central (read that metered) server? They've never given up on that
> idea....centralized control.
>

Blech. They can switch me when hell freezes over.

The only "Trusted Computer" for me is one that I have complete
control over and know exactly
what is running.