Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 378
  1. #61
    Nashton
    Guest

    Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

    Rod Speed wrote:
    > George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote
    >>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote
    >>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
    >>>>>>>>>> you already have on the computer for example.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Explain, please.

    >
    >>>>>>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
    >>>>>>>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
    >>>>>>>> are already used to than a special purpose app.

    >
    >>>>>>> No it isn't.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> And what applications do those things better?

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
    >>>>>>>>>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> That's one option you have with iTunes.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Not with the file manager you use for everything else.

    >
    >>>>>>> And that file manager can't play music. Let's see, with your
    >>>>>>> preferred method, you use one application to download music,
    >>>>>>> another to play it, another to copy it to the iPod, and another
    >>>>>>> to burn it to CDs. I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of
    >>>>>>> those functions in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.

    >
    >>>>>> I think we've found ourselves another cross-posting Apple hater Michelle.

    >
    >>>>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

    >
    >>>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.

    >
    >>> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.

    >
    >> Where did I call you a name?

    >
    > Even you should be able to find 'another cross-posting Apple hater' above.
    >
    >> I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater (from your posts)

    >
    > Pity there isnt a shred of apple hate in any of my posts.
    >
    >> but that's hardly personal rancor.

    >
    > Its clearly name calling.
    >
    >>>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
    >>>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.

    >
    >>>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?

    >
    >>> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.

    >
    >> Again, what name calling?

    >
    > See above.
    >
    >> I have called you by no name.

    >
    > Bare faced lie.
    >
    >>>>>> Apple's way is no good because it's ...well....Apples way.

    >
    >>>>> Wrong again. Its just much more intuitive for a device to
    >>>>> showup as just another drive, and be able to use the device
    >>>>> just like any other device when loading and unloading it.

    >
    >>>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?

    >
    >>> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
    >>> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.

    >
    >>>> Anyway, its not mine.

    >
    >>> Your problem.

    >
    >> Not a problem, just a different opinion.

    >
    > It your problem that your opinion differs.
    >
    >>>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
    >>>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.

    >
    >>> You need to get out more.

    >
    >>> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.

    >
    >> I disagree

    >
    > Your problem.
    >
    >>>>> Sure, include a dedicated app for the stupids who dont even
    >>>>> know what a drive is, but let those who do know what a drive
    >>>>> is deal with the device just like any other drive if they want to.

    >
    >>>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.

    >
    >>> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.

    >
    >>>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
    >>>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.

    >
    >>> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.

    >
    >> I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.

    >
    > Your problem.
    >
    >>>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.

    >
    >>>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.

    >
    >>>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.

    >
    >>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.

    >
    >>>>> Even someone as stupid as you

    >
    >>>> Again, why the personal rancor?

    >
    >>> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.

    >
    >> I called you no name.

    >
    > Bare faced lie. You called me another cross-posting Apple hater.
    >
    >>>> I've not called you any names have I?

    >
    >>> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'

    >
    >> I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call you one.

    >
    > Pathetic.
    >
    >> Even so, responding by calling me stupid,

    >
    > Never did.
    >
    >> bigoted,

    >
    > Or that.
    >
    >> incapable of thought

    >
    > Or that.
    >
    >> is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain opinion (Apple hater)

    >
    > Just another of your silly little fantasys.
    >
    >> based upon their own words.

    >
    > Just like with your stupidity and incapability of thought. Funny that.
    >
    >>>>> should be able to have a look at my posting history and see that
    >>>>> I hardly ever make any comment about Apple, and that when I
    >>>>> do, I have said that the ipod particularly is a very decent
    >>>>> product, albeit with some real downsides with iTunes particularly.

    >
    >>>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.

    >
    >>> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.

    >
    >> But relevant enough when you call me stupid
    >> because I haven't checked your posting history.

    >
    > Never ever did that, liar.
    >
    >>>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
    >>>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.

    >
    >>> Try getting something out of an ipod and
    >>> putting it in another media player for starters.

    >
    >> I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection,
    >> not from stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.

    >
    > And you cant get stuff from somone else's ipod into your own very easily either.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.

    >
    >>>>>>> Right here, we're talking about the iPod

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
    >>>>>>>>>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.

    >
    >>>>>>> Gee, right here, you're changing it to cell phones.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone
    >>>>>>>>>> ever showed up.

    >
    >>>>>>> And here you're talking about cell phones
    >>>>>>> again, still in response to the iPod interface.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

    >
    >>>>>>> And now, you're talking about media players.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
    >>>>>>>>> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.

    >
    >>>>>>>> They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't download
    >>>>>>>>> music from the computer to the phone, period.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.

    >
    >>>>>>> But we were talking about one of the reasons I'm planning to switch from Verizon.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.

    >
    >>>>>>> Oh, so you're saying that Apple should have produced a cell phone years ago?

    >
    >>>>>>>>> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the market
    >>>>>>>>> before the iPod made no impression on them?

    >
    >>>>>>>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.

    >
    >>>>>>> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?

    >
    >>>>>>>>> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at
    >>>>>>>>> Apple to make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally
    >>>>>>>>> didn't do) because it was, by God, an *Apple*, whose computers
    >>>>>>>>> they refused to buy.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.

    >
    >>>>>>> If they hadn't shown an interest in wanting an iPod, Apple
    >>>>>>> wouldn't have made the iPod compatible with Windows in the first
    >>>>>>> place. But even if you're right, that means that people who had
    >>>>>>> avoided both
    >>>>>>> Apple and MP3 players in droves suddenly swarmed to get iPods
    >>>>>>> because Apple made the iPod available for Windows? Do you
    >>>>>>> realize how senseless your thesis is?

    >
    >>>>>>> I'll tell you one thing, though; if the iPhone won't do voice
    >>>>>>> dialing and if it won't upload its address book to my car (which
    >>>>>>> has Bluetooth capability for cell phones), I won't buy one. If
    >>>>>>> it does one, but not the other, I'll have to decide.

    >
    >>>>>> It won't surprise me if it doesn't do one or the other.

    >
    >>>>> Me neither, and when so many of its competitive products do
    >>>>> both, AND allow the device to be used just like any other drive...

    >
    >>>>>> Rarely do I buy a technology product (or even a computer application) that will
    >>>>>> do everything I would put in it had I designed it. I suspect we're all that way

    >
    >>>>> Pity that the functionality she wants is there in the competitive
    >>>>> products. With a real keyboard too, which is much better for email.

    >
    >>>>> AND the competitive products allow you to add 3rd party
    >>>>> apps to do what the product itself doesnt come with too.

    >
    >>>>> Yes, many of the stupids dont enhance their device with 3rd party
    >>>>> apps, but anyone with a clue does when some functionality is missing.

    >
    >>>> Name calling again.

    >
    >>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

    >
    >> Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate,

    >
    > You clearly did just that at the top.
    >
    >> and I haven't called you any names.

    >
    > Liar.
    >
    >>>> I don't get it.

    >
    >>> Your problem.

    >
    >> Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me.

    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >> Of course if you don't care, there's always the kill-file.

    >
    > No one give a flying red **** what fools like you do or do not choose to read.
    >
    >


    *PLONK*



    See More: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows




  2. #62
    Nashton
    Guest

    Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

    zappo wrote:
    > George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote
    >>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>>> George Graves <[email protected]> wrote
    >>>>>> Michelle Steiner wrote
    >>>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> OK, exactly what are iTunes' failings?

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Its not very intuitive when loading the ipod with mp3
    >>>>>>>>>> you already have on the computer for example.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Explain, please.

    >
    >>>>>>>> I already did. Its much more intuitive for the ipod to appear
    >>>>>>>> as a drive and to use the normal file manager interface you
    >>>>>>>> are already used to than a special purpose app.

    >
    >>>>>>> No it isn't.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> And what applications do those things better?

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Its rather more intuitive to just drag and drop those mp3s
    >>>>>>>>>> etc you already have to a drive which is the media player.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> That's one option you have with iTunes.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Not with the file manager you use for everything else.

    >
    >>>>>>> And that file manager can't play music. Let's see, with your
    >>>>>>> preferred method, you use one application to download music,
    >>>>>>> another to play it, another to copy it to the iPod, and another
    >>>>>>> to burn it to CDs. I, on the other hand, use iTunes for all of
    >>>>>>> those functions in one easy to use, intuitive, integrated application.

    >
    >>>>>> I think we've found ourselves another cross-posting Apple hater Michelle.

    >
    >>>>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought.

    >
    >>>> Ah, so now we degenerate into name calling.

    >
    >>> Nope, you did. No name calling there, except by you.

    >
    >> Where did I call you a name?

    >
    > Even you should be able to find 'another cross-posting Apple hater' above.
    >
    >> I said that you seemed to be an Apple hater (from your posts)

    >
    > Pity there isnt a shred of apple hate in any of my posts.
    >
    >> but that's hardly personal rancor.

    >
    > Its clearly name calling.
    >
    >>>>> So stupid it cant even work out that I didnt crosspost, I
    >>>>> just left the original crossposting in place, just like you did.

    >
    >>>> I didn't look, sorry about that, but why the personal rancor?

    >
    >>> Might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.

    >
    >> Again, what name calling?

    >
    > See above.
    >
    >> I have called you by no name.

    >
    > Bare faced lie.
    >
    >>>>>> Apple's way is no good because it's ...well....Apples way.

    >
    >>>>> Wrong again. Its just much more intuitive for a device to
    >>>>> showup as just another drive, and be able to use the device
    >>>>> just like any other device when loading and unloading it.

    >
    >>>> That's a matter of opinion, don't you think?

    >
    >>> Nope. Matter of fact that allowing BOTH types of access is by definition
    >>> more intuitive than a single special purpose app for access to the device.

    >
    >>>> Anyway, its not mine.

    >
    >>> Your problem.

    >
    >> Not a problem, just a different opinion.

    >
    > It your problem that your opinion differs.
    >
    >>>> There are things that I would change in iTunes, sure, but overall,
    >>>> its the best integrated app of its kind that I've seen so far.

    >
    >>> You need to get out more.

    >
    >>> And treating the device as a drive is much more intuitive than any app can be.

    >
    >> I disagree

    >
    > Your problem.
    >
    >>>>> Sure, include a dedicated app for the stupids who dont even
    >>>>> know what a drive is, but let those who do know what a drive
    >>>>> is deal with the device just like any other drive if they want to.

    >
    >>>> You can do that with an iPod is you wish.

    >
    >>> Not easily by just plugging the iPod in and using it as a drive you cant.

    >
    >>>> See Apple gives you the choice. But believe me,
    >>>> its a lot harder without iTunes than it is with it.

    >
    >>> No it isnt when its properly implemented as a drive.

    >
    >> I'm sorry, all things considered, I simply don't see it.

    >
    > Your problem.
    >
    >>>>>> Any other way is better because it's ... well, ... not Apple's way.

    >
    >>>>> Just another mindless Apple bigot.

    >
    >>>> Seems to be the attitude that you are projecting in this thread.

    >
    >>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.

    >
    >>>>> Even someone as stupid as you

    >
    >>>> Again, why the personal rancor?

    >
    >>> Again, might just have been triggered by your juvenile name calling.

    >
    >> I called you no name.

    >
    > Bare faced lie. You called me another cross-posting Apple hater.
    >
    >>>> I've not called you any names have I?

    >
    >>> Corse you did, you called me 'another cross-posting Apple hater'

    >
    >> I "CHARACTERIZED" you as 'another cross posting Apple hater', I didn't call you one.

    >
    > Pathetic.
    >
    >> Even so, responding by calling me stupid,

    >
    > Never did.
    >
    >> bigoted,

    >
    > Or that.
    >
    >> incapable of thought

    >
    > Or that.
    >
    >> is hardly the same as characterizing someone as having a certain opinion (Apple hater)

    >
    > Just another of your silly little fantasys.
    >
    >> based upon their own words.

    >
    > Just like with your stupidity and incapability of thought. Funny that.
    >
    >>>>> should be able to have a look at my posting history and see that
    >>>>> I hardly ever make any comment about Apple, and that when I
    >>>>> do, I have said that the ipod particularly is a very decent
    >>>>> product, albeit with some real downsides with iTunes particularly.

    >
    >>>> Frankly, up until a few days ago, I don't remember seeing your name at all.

    >
    >>> Irrelevant to my history in groups you dont read.

    >
    >> But relevant enough when you call me stupid
    >> because I haven't checked your posting history.

    >
    > Never ever did that, liar.
    >
    >>>>> Its not a particularly intuitive app, even if you ignore the
    >>>>> fact that you cant treat the ipod as just another drive.

    >
    >>> Try getting something out of an ipod and
    >>> putting it in another media player for starters.

    >
    >> I can do it for stuff that I've ripped from my own CD collection,
    >> not from stuff bought from Apple's Music Store.

    >
    > And you cant get stuff from somone else's ipod into your own very easily either.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the iPod has the best UI of any portable
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> media player extant--until Friday, that is.

    >
    >>>>>>> Right here, we're talking about the iPod

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, plenty of cellphones leave it for dead, essentially
    >>>>>>>>>>>> because they integrate the media player with other capability.

    >
    >>>>>>> Gee, right here, you're changing it to cell phones.

    >
    >>>>>>>>>>> The iPod isn't a cell phone; how can you compare the two?

    >
    >>>>>>>>>> Those others combined those functions long before the iphone
    >>>>>>>>>> ever showed up.

    >
    >>>>>>> And here you're talking about cell phones
    >>>>>>> again, still in response to the iPod interface.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Huh? We were talking about the iPod.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

    >
    >>>>>>> And now, you're talking about media players.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Nope, we're talking about media players.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> But even though they did those functions before the iPhone ever
    >>>>>>>>> showed up doesn't mean that they do it better than the iPhone.

    >
    >>>>>>>> They do anyway when the device is just another drive visible on the computer.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Heck, Verizon's phones don't do it at all--you can't download
    >>>>>>>>> music from the computer to the phone, period.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what hordes of phones can do in that regard.

    >
    >>>>>>> But we were talking about one of the reasons I'm planning to switch from Verizon.

    >
    >>>>>>>>> Apple did it with their very first phone; you can't get any faster than that.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Corse you can, you dont have to lag the rest of the market so dismally.

    >
    >>>>>>> Oh, so you're saying that Apple should have produced a cell phone years ago?

    >
    >>>>>>>>> I see; all those other MP3 players that were on the market
    >>>>>>>>> before the iPod made no impression on them?

    >
    >>>>>>>> Those that were suckers for the ipod, no they didnt.

    >
    >>>>>>> 70% of those who have bought MP3 players are suckers?

    >
    >>>>>>>>> And then when the iPod came out, they started screaming at
    >>>>>>>>> Apple to make it work with Windows (which the iPod originally
    >>>>>>>>> didn't do) because it was, by God, an Apple, whose computers
    >>>>>>>>> they refused to buy.

    >
    >>>>>>>> Nope, they ignored them until they could be used with what they had.

    >
    >>>>>>> If they hadn't shown an interest in wanting an iPod, Apple
    >>>>>>> wouldn't have made the iPod compatible with Windows in the first
    >>>>>>> place. But even if you're right, that means that people who had
    >>>>>>> avoided both
    >>>>>>> Apple and MP3 players in droves suddenly swarmed to get iPods
    >>>>>>> because Apple made the iPod available for Windows? Do you
    >>>>>>> realize how senseless your thesis is?

    >
    >>>>>>> I'll tell you one thing, though; if the iPhone won't do voice
    >>>>>>> dialing and if it won't upload its address book to my car (which
    >>>>>>> has Bluetooth capability for cell phones), I won't buy one. If
    >>>>>>> it does one, but not the other, I'll have to decide.

    >
    >>>>>> It won't surprise me if it doesn't do one or the other.

    >
    >>>>> Me neither, and when so many of its competitive products do
    >>>>> both, AND allow the device to be used just like any other drive...

    >
    >>>>>> Rarely do I buy a technology product (or even a computer application) that will
    >>>>>> do everything I would put in it had I designed it. I suspect we're all that way

    >
    >>>>> Pity that the functionality she wants is there in the competitive
    >>>>> products. With a real keyboard too, which is much better for email.

    >
    >>>>> AND the competitive products allow you to add 3rd party
    >>>>> apps to do what the product itself doesnt come with too.

    >
    >>>>> Yes, many of the stupids dont enhance their device with 3rd party
    >>>>> apps, but anyone with a clue does when some functionality is missing.

    >
    >>>> Name calling again.

    >
    >>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

    >
    >> Not to anybody who tries to carry on an intelligent debate,

    >
    > You clearly did just that at the top.
    >
    >> and I haven't called you any names.

    >
    > Liar.
    >
    >>>> I don't get it.

    >
    >>> Your problem.

    >
    >> Its yours too IF you wish to go on debating with me.

    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >> Of course if you don't care, there's always the kill-file.

    >
    > No one give a flying red **** what fools like you do or do not choose to read.
    >
    >


    *PLONK* to you too, nymshifter/sockpuppet.



  3. #63
    MuahMan
    Guest

    Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

    Actually ALL, as in, EVERY SINGLE ONE.... of Democrats and Republicans are
    ****ng idiots voting for the status quo. If you don't vote 3rd party you are
    part of the problem and should kill yourself!




  4. #64
    Ura Dippschit
    Guest

    Re: Apple's iPhone top choice to buy, survey shows

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

    > *PLONK* to you too, nymshifter/sockpuppet.


    You quoted that whole ****ing mess just to tell the world you're going
    to killfile him?

    YOU ****ING MORON! PLONK TO YOU TOO DICKHEAD!!!



  5. #65
    Mark Crispin
    Guest

    iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
    became famous as a massive commercial failure.

    The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
    need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
    to have the latest toy).

    The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
    So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
    SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)

    The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.

    To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
    the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
    out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
    market.

    This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
    years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
    that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
    dime-a-dozen on eBay.

    -- Mark --

    http://panda.com/mrc
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
    Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.



  6. #66
    John A. Weeks III
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

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

    > To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
    > the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
    > out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
    > market.


    Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
    a different planet or living in a cave. The iPhone has been a
    massive success. They had a million units sold in the first month.
    That is amazing numbers for a first of a kind product from a company
    that never sold a single cell phone before the iPhone.

    Future iPhones will have more horsepower, more features, and a
    developers API. Remember, this is the first cell phone that Apple
    has put on the market. The Edsel, in contrast, came 50 years after
    Ford started selling cars. It was not a first time effort. Ford
    should have known better. Apple is just getting started.

    -john-

    --
    ======================================================================
    John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 [email protected]
    Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
    ======================================================================



  7. #67
    George Kerby
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel




    On 9/9/07 12:51 PM, in article
    [email protected], "John A. Weeks
    III" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Mark Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
    >> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
    >> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
    >> market.

    >
    > Are you talking about the Apple iPhone? If so, you must be from
    > a different planet or living in a cave.


    Actually, he has been in time warp for the past 50+ years. He finally had to
    pull over to find some leaded gasoline for that Edsel that is transporting
    him in the ether.




  8. #68
    4phun
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    Well if they have three million they may have a least one left when my
    Verizon contract is up in October. I am out of here with all of my
    family as I switch to the very interesting iPhone at the $400 price
    level. I have a LG VX9800 that I have used for several years after a
    variety of smart phones that sort of worked. The screen of the VX9800
    though sharp is too small IMHO. Also I am very angry at the greedy
    decisions of Verizon to cripple any decent phone that they carry.
    These are just two of the reasons to join the churn leaving Verizion.


    On Sep 9, 2:51 pm, "zara" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > They produced four million ,with the expectation they would be sold out
    > immediatly. They are still holding more than three million.






  9. #69

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
    >became famous as a massive commercial failure.
    >


    I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
    recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
    styled the iPhone is.

    The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
    a phone called the "Steve".



  10. #70
    skip
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    [email protected] wrote in news:vl39e3p6cvpek5l5ho0tsg6tb78db9mfu8
    @4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 09:52:19 -0700, Mark Crispin
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
    >>became famous as a massive commercial failure.
    >>

    >
    > I don't recall the Edsel selling 1 million in the first 3 months. I
    > recall everyone saying how ugly it was, as opposed to how perfectly
    > styled the iPhone is.
    >
    > The Edsel was named after an individual, Apple does not have
    > a phone called the "Steve".
    >


    I loved the car I don't know why it failed.



  11. #71
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

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

    > 50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
    > became famous as a massive commercial failure.
    >
    > The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
    > need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
    > to have the latest toy).

    Mischaracterization; the iPhone is Apple's attempt to do a combination
    device better than others have done them. As such, it's evolutionary
    and designed to fit existing markets.
    The point is defeated entirely.

    > The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
    > So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
    > SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)

    iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
    implementation. It has the highest res of all phones, seems to have a
    good keyboard, 3G isn't a specific need. That it is locked to just one
    carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!

    > The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.

    Wrong. Many of it's competitors are more expensive. Many are less. But
    none do exactly what it does, so it's a silly condemnation.

    > To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
    > the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
    > out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
    > market.

    That would be insanely stupid even if all of the rest of your argument
    was right on target. Are you suggesting product failures are products
    that, after a while, stop getting made or sold?

    > This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
    > years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
    > that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
    > dime-a-dozen on eBay.

    Also stupid; Newtons are highly prized by collectors and others because
    they were great products. See the difference? Commercial faiilure is
    often different from product design failure.
    It seems you have a particular problem accepting the idea that some
    companies make different products. If that's all this is, then shut up
    and find a hole someplace to die in.
    If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
    things first. Development problems, design problems, and economic
    problems are different things -- you can't just pick out any famous
    failure from the past and claim it's the fate of a product that you
    (and almost you alone) think is a bad one.

    All you prove is that you are an idiot.



  12. #72
    Mitch
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

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

    > 50 years ago, Ford Motor Company came out with the Edsel, a product that
    > became famous as a massive commercial failure.
    >
    > The Edsel was designed to fill a marketing niche, rather than a specific
    > need or capability. So is the iPhone (in this case, the fanboys who have
    > to have the latest toy).
    >
    > The Edsel was an outstanding design with a badly flawed implementation.
    > So is the iPhone (no 3G, low-resolution screen, no third-party apps or
    > SDK, poor keyboard, locked, ...)


    Still can't believe there is yet another moron claiming this is a
    low-res phone, and who totally ignores that the very best of needed
    apps are already provided.
    He's also clearly not tried the keyboard or read the reviews on it.
    What an idiot.



  13. #73
    Bill Gates
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    This sums it up quite well:

    Apple's price cutting practice, while heavily criticised by the press,
    is not dissimilar to others in the IT industry. The NY Times put the
    price drop in context: Motorola, for instance, introduced the ultra-thin
    Razr phone for $499 with a two-year service contract in early 2005. Six
    months later, Motorola realized it had a hit on its hands and dropped
    the price to $199 in an effort to aim at more mainstream buyers. By the
    end of 2005, the price was $99.

    At $599 the iPhone was one of the most expensive smart phones on the
    market. More expensive than a Treo, and more expensive than a
    Blackberry. At $399 however it's one of the least expensive. That,
    coupled with the fact that the iPhone -- with its very high resolution,
    huge screen, and advanced 3D graphics -- makes other phones look like
    bricks, and that means that Apple is going to have a runaway success on
    its hands.

    ---

    I think the most amazing thing about the iPhone is the screen, it's FAR
    better than any computer or hand held device out there, and now at $399
    for a great IMAP mail client, full web browser, it's going to roll over
    any Microsoft CE product like a steamroller. Bye bye MS with the iPhone.



  14. #74
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    At 09 Sep 2007 22:40:18 -0600 Bill Gates/Oxford/Gene Jones/et al
    wrote:
    > This sums it up quite well:
    >
    > Apple's price cutting practice, while heavily criticised by the

    press,
    > is not dissimilar to others in the IT industry. The NY Times put
    > the price drop in context: Motorola, for instance, introduced the
    > ultra-thin Razr phone for $499 with a two-year service contract in
    > early 2005. Six months later, Motorola realized it had a hit on its
    > hands and dropped the price to $199 in an effort to aim at more
    > mainstream buyers. By the end of 2005, the price was $99.



    True. However, this brings up an excellent point. Motorola, to this
    day, hasn't topped the success of the RAZR. Like the iPhone, it was
    a new, head-turning, outstanding, design, which price cuts turned
    into a "commodity" item.

    This not only alienates the early adopters (believe me- it did with
    early RAZR buyers!) but it also hurts sales of similar looking but
    more featured products, as Motorola has painfully discovered.

    If the iPhone is the "ultimate" phone, as you often post, and
    possibly even believe, what incentive is there to go "up the line" to
    future higher end versions? If this phone was truly marketable at
    $599, the solution to "going for it" would've been to release a less
    featured version at a lower price point, rather than abandon the
    $500+ point "forever" which is what they essentially did- Steve drew
    a line in the sand with the price cut last week- he essentially said
    the phone in an iPhone is only worth $99 more than a similarly
    equipped iPod. The market will expect him to stick to that.

    > I think the most amazing thing about the iPhone is the screen, it's
    > FAR better than any computer or hand held device out there, and now
    > at $399 for a great IMAP mail client, full web browser, it's going
    > to roll over any Microsoft CE product like a steamroller. Bye bye
    > MS with the iPhone.



    Here we go again, Oxy. Lower-end CE products can be had for $99 or
    less- like a T-Mo Dash, Moto Q or AT&T's Blackjack. Sure they are
    less featured, but they handle e-mail, web, media, etc. acceptably
    well, particularly at their price points.

    Where the iPhone may "hurt" WinMo is where it deserves to be hurt-
    the people who were buying "business class" devices for "consumer" use,

    because no comparable consumer device was available. They may have
    wanted better e-mail support than a typical "music phone" offered,
    and jumped all the way to, say, a PPC phone to get it. Apple filled
    a niche with iPhone that was unserved before- a high-end consumer
    media phone with web and e-mail. Prior to it's launch, some
    consumers had to "overbuy" to get that functionality.

    But once again you present your tired flawed argument- that any one
    device, no matter how well designed, can say "bye bye" to a range of
    products aimed at other markets. It's like saying the Toyota Prius
    is so well designed it will say "bye bye" to motocycles and pick-up
    trucks.

    At $399 iPhone won't say "bye bye" to $0-$99 smartphones for price-
    sensitive buyers, and it won't say "bye bye" to Blackberries and
    Treos for business users due to it's "missing" features. It WILL
    however, steal plenty of market share from similarly priced RIM and
    WinMo phones, as buyers who previously bought them for the "wrong"
    reasons can now choose iPhones.



    --

    "I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
    or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
    all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
    ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003





  15. #75
    Mark Crispin
    Guest

    Re: iPhone the 21st Century Edsel

    On Sun, 9 Sep 2007, Mitch wrote:
    > Mischaracterization; the iPhone is Apple's attempt to do a combination
    > device better than others have done them. As such, it's evolutionary
    > and designed to fit existing markets.


    It's also a failure. It's a solution in search of a problem.

    Where's the market after all the fanboys have bought one.

    > iPhone appears to be an outstanding design with an outstanding
    > implementation. It has the highest res of all phones,


    All you're saying, in effect, is "for many times the price, the iPhone is
    less inadequate for browsing the web than other phones."

    With one more diagonal inch it could have FOUR TIMES as many pixels.
    That would permit web browsing without all the zooming in and out that has
    to be done on the iPhone.

    > seems to have a
    > good keyboard,


    The Blackberry crowd doesn't think so. The reports are coming in of
    business users who tried iPhone and went back to Blackberry.

    > 3G isn't a specific need.


    That's like saying that "a hard drive isn't a specific need, everything
    you need is on floppy (Mac 128K) or optical disk (first NeXT cube)." The
    fanboys were wrong when they said that then, and they are wrong now.

    > That it is locked to just one
    > carrier is an economic issue, and means nothing at all to many users!


    Tell that to the users who discover that T-Mobile has much lower rates
    than AT&T and find that they can't switch.

    That that to the international travellers who buy a local prepay SIM card
    overseas.

    >> The Edsel was more expensive than alternatives. So is the iPhone.

    > Wrong. Many of it's competitors are more expensive. Many are less. But
    > none do exactly what it does, so it's a silly condemnation.


    Nobody else made a car with the same cosmetics as an Edsel. That doesn't
    make the comparison irrelevant.

    The iPhone purports to be a phone. It is not a great phone, but it seems
    to work as well as any cheap non-3G GSM phone. Too bad that it costs so
    much more.

    The iPhone purports to be a portable Internet access device. Too bad that
    the screen resolution is so small so you are forced to use the zoom. Too
    bad that you are stuck with Safari and can't use far superior choices such
    as Firefox. Too bad that you can't download and run third-party apps.
    Too bad there's no SDK to permit you to build your own apps.

    Because of its limitations, the iPhone isn't a handheld computer. It's
    more like a PDA. But it's not a particularly good PDA, especially for
    enterprise users who need sync to their corporate system.

    >> To see the future of the iPhone, we only have to look at what became of
    >> the Edsel. It was manufacturered for only two years before it was taken
    >> out of its misery; and it now sells for premium prices on the collector's
    >> market.

    > That would be insanely stupid even if all of the rest of your argument
    > was right on target. Are you suggesting product failures are products
    > that, after a while, stop getting made or sold?


    Product failures are product lines that die without a successor. They are
    evolutionary dead ends.

    The Newton is an example; Apple's venture into the PDA market failed even
    though it used a lot of technology from Sharp (which is still very much in
    the PDA market).

    NeXT was a product failure, even though some of its software got salvaged
    and incorporated into Mac OS X. A similar fate befell Lisa.

    Ricochet was a product failure, even though its zombie hangs on in Denver.
    People who had it loved it. Technically, it was far superior to CDPD
    which at the time was the only alternative. It still died.

    The HP-35, on the other hand, is not a product failure even though it has
    been decades since the last HP-35 was manufactured. It has many
    successors (some more successful than others) that continue to this day.

    DOS and MacOS are not product failures either; although themselves dead,
    they were replaced in an evolutionary process by NT and Mac OS X. Their
    users see (correctly) a "newer, better" Windows and a "new, better" Mac
    that run all their familiar old software.

    >> This last may be a reason to buy an iPhone; you intend to sell it NIB some
    >> years down the line for big bucks. Be careful, though. People thought
    >> that Newtons had great investment potential too but they remain a
    >> dime-a-dozen on eBay.

    > Also stupid; Newtons are highly prized by collectors and others because
    > they were great products. See the difference? Commercial faiilure is
    > often different from product design failure.


    Newtons are NOT "highly prized by collectors". Take a look at prices on
    eBay before you make such verifiably false assumptions.

    Maybe you highly prize Newtons for your collection. If so, I'll sell you
    a complete MP100 box set with extra accessories (modem, memory card) that
    for the low low price of $500. Get it while it's hot, fanboy!

    > It seems you have a particular problem accepting the idea that some
    > companies make different products. If that's all this is, then shut up
    > and find a hole someplace to die in.


    I see that I touched a fanboy nerve. Good.

    > If you have INTELLIGENT things to say about products, figure out those
    > things first.


    Your definition of "intelligent" seems to be fanboy worship. The iPhone
    has numerous technology and market problems.

    Nothing about iPhone technology is excellent. It is a combination of a
    ecletic set of mediocrities. "It's a better web browser than other
    phones", but it isn't a particularly great phone. "It's a smaller and
    cheaper web browser than a laptop", but it does much less and has a tiny
    screen resolution.

    The target market for the iPhone are fanboys who go for the cool design
    and overlook the technological deficiencies. The suits looked at iPhone
    and gone back to Blackberry. Although there certainly are fangirls, most
    women look at the iPhone and see an expensive toy.

    Now we have international travellers who discover that they better not
    bring their iPhone for incoming calls (the way you can for a NORMAL phone)
    if they don't want to be hit with thousands of dollars of GPRS roaming
    charges due to background fetching of email.

    > All you prove is that you are an idiot.


    In the language of fanboys, "idiot" means "anyone who does not drink Steve
    Jobs' Kool-Aid."

    I will thoroughly enjoy the wails of anguish when iPhone dies. It will be
    sooner rather than later. iPod Touch is clearly the direction of that
    product line. As a product, iPod Touch makes much more sense.

    iPhone is destined to go down as an oddball that was a phone too, but more
    expensive and with less memory.

    -- Mark --

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



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 5 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast